Riley v WA

(2005) 30 WAR 525; [2005] WASCA 190

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal
2. › Criminal law
3. › Trial by judge alone
4. › Adequacy of reasons
5. › DNA evidence
6. › Conflict between experts
7. › Whether trial judge required to address conflicting expert evidence or explain why not necessary to do so
8. › Whether failure to expose process of reasoning constituted error of law
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › DNA evidence
4. › Mixed DNA profiles
5. › Statistical probability
6. › Likelihood ratio versus random man not excluded methodology
7. › Whether statistical expression of probability can substitute for proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Trial by judge alone
4. › Reasons for decision
5. › Factual error affecting credibility finding
6. › Whether misattribution of evidence constituted miscarriage of justice

Quick Take

Where a criminal case turns on DNA evidence and there is a significant conflict between expert witnesses on the methodology and statistical calculations underlying that evidence, a trial judge sitting alone must set out findings as to how one set of evidence is accepted over the other, and must address the specific challenges raised by the defence expert or explain why it is not necessary to make findings about them. A bare statement that the prosecution evidence is accepted is insufficient. Evidence that the appellant's physical description is merely 'consistent with' the offender is not evidence tending to prove guilt.