Reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of forensic DNA testing is not to be imputed as a matter of law merely because laboratory processes have not been shown to be fail-safe or because more perfect procedures might have been adopted; the question is one of fact to be resolved by reference to the evidence. An expert witness who assumes the role of advocate and makes accusations of dishonesty against other scientists without reasonable basis may have their evidence rejected or given reduced weight. On a reference under s 672A, the distinction between 'fresh' and 'new' evidence continues to apply, and the petitioner bears the practical burden of establishing that evidence could not with reasonable diligence have been obtained at trial.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 13 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.