Where fresh evidence raises the possibility that a biological relative of the accused was responsible for a drug offence, the 'unrelated to' qualification in DNA probability evidence may significantly undermine the prosecution case, requiring the DNA evidence to be recast. The distinction between fresh and new evidence remains important: evidence known to the accused or discoverable with reasonable diligence before trial, or not led for tactical reasons, will not ground a fresh evidence appeal. The failure of trial counsel to object to inadmissible evidence of the exercise of the right to silence, combined with a general direction on the right to silence and a strong prosecution case, may result in the proviso being applied under s 30(4) of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.