The Court held that where the only evidence implicating an accused is DNA found at a crime scene, and the forensic evidence establishes that indirect transfer is a real possibility — particularly where the offender was wearing gloves — the prosecution fails to prove identity beyond reasonable doubt. The Court further held that a [name withheld] direction was inappropriate because the mechanism of DNA transfer to gloves worn by an unknown offender was not a matter peculiarly within the accused's knowledge. The decision turned on the particular circumstances that the complainant's evidence established the offender wore gloves, the fingerprints at the exit point did not match the appellant, and the forensic scientist could not determine whether DNA was deposited by direct or indirect transfer.
The full text is available to signed-in members.