Playing forensic science monopoly

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

1. R v Bradley John Murdoch [2005] NTSC 78;Murdoch v R (2007) 167 A Crim R 329; R v Tang (2006) 65 NSWLR 681; Morgan v R (2011) 215 A Crim R 33; R v Hawi (No 24) [2011] NSWSC 1670; R v Dastagir (2013) 224 A Crim R 570.

2. (2014) 311 ALR 320.

3. Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s79.

4. Honeysett at [45].

5. The Queen v Bonython (1984) 38 SASR 45.

6. Committee on identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, National Research Council, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, August 2009.

7. NCS Report, page 182.

8. NCS Report, page 128.

9. Fingerprint Inquiry, Scotland 2011. Available at www.thefingerprintinquiryscotland.org.uk

10. Fingerprint Inquiry Report, Scotland, Chapter 31, paragraph 31.2.

11. R v Blacker (1910) 10 CLR 604; R v Wilton [2014] SASCFC 96.

12. R v Dimitropoulos [1992] SASC 3625; R v Arrol [1999] SASC 294.

13. R v Parker.

14. Fingerprint Inquiry, Scotland, Chapter 35, paragraph 35.130.

15. Fingerprint Inquiry, Scotland, Chapter 35, paragraph 35.127.

16. Fingerprint Inquiry, Scotland, Chapter 25, paragraph 35.128.

17. Fingerprint Inquiry, Scotland, Chapter 38, paragraph 38.77 and Chapter 43.

18. Fingerprint Inquiry, Scotland, Chapter 25, paragraph 25.129.

19. (2014) 88 ALRJ 779; [2014] HCA 28.

20. There are authorities suggesting that an accused can be convicted on DNA evidence alone. See Forbes v R (2001) 167 ACTR 1 (leave to appeal to the High Court was refused); Mansfield v R [2013] VSCA 161. Also, discussion in R v Whyms [2012] ACTSC 7.

21. Uniform Evidence Acts of the Commonwealth (applying in the ACT) section 146, New South Wales, Norfolk Island, Northern Territory, Tasmania and Victoria; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) Part 6A; Evidence Act 1906 (WA) s79C, Evidence Act 1977 (Qld s95). For discussion of modernisation see SA Law Reform Institute, Modernisation of South Australian evidence law to deal with new technologies, Computer Says No, Final Report 1, October 2012.

22. SA Law Reform Institute, [3.94].

23. R v Fuller [2013] SADC 150. The application should have been made prior to the empanelment of the jury for the trial.

24. Weiss v R (2005) 224 CLR 300 at [41].

25. (2005) 224 CLR 300.

26. Weiss at [45].

27. (2006) 225 ALR 161 at [4], [6] per Gleeson CJ.

28. (2008) 236 CLR 358.

29. Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), Part 20.

30. Eastman v Director of Public Prosecutions [No 2] [2014] ACTSFC 2.

31. Mr. Eastman’s appeal against his conviction was dismissed, see Eastman v The Queen (1997) 76 FCR 9.

32. Eastman v Director of Public Prosecutions [No 2] [2014] ACTSFC 2 at [247] referring to Davies v The King (1937) 57 CLR 170 at 184–185; Lee (2014) 308 ALR 252 at 263–264 [47]-[48].

33. Eastman v DPP [No 2] at [249] citing Nudd v The Queen (2006) 225 ALR 161 at 163–164 [6]7 – [7].

34. Eastman v DPP [No 2] at [251].