The magistrates had not been entitled to conclude that the evidence of a fingerprint officer and a reference to the fact that the control sample was that of the defendant's, was admissible under the provisions of s.24 Criminal Justice Act 1988. The use of this section could not cure the gap of a lack of continuity in fingerprint evidence.

DC (Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ, Astill J)

18/04/2000