The appellant's conviction for murder was unsafe and had to be quashed where it was highly probable that the victim had been attacked by one man, and where the DNA evidence had excluded the appellant as the attacker.Appeal, pursuant to a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, by the appellant ('S') against his conviction for the murder of a young woman. The woman had been raped, maybe buggered and then killed by a man stamping on her head and neck. The evidence against S consisted of: (i) semen found on intimate swabs taken from the victim that were shown to have come from the same blood group as S; (ii) injuries, which were visible on S's face, arms and back when he was arrested which the victim could have inflicted upon S during his attack on her; and (iii) the impression of a right shoe which was found on the victim's abdomen such that it could have come from a pair of shoes belonging to S. The essential basis for the Commission's reference was that there existed new evidence in the form of DNA profiling of material found in the victim's body which did not belong to S.HELD: (1) If it were the courts' conclusion that there had only been one male contributor to the DNA found in the intimate samples taken from the victim, S could not have been the contributor. (2) There had been nothing in the evidence relied upon by the Crown, to dispel the very strong probability that there had only been one male contributor to the DNA found in the intimate samples taken from the victim. (3) In relation to S's injuries, the fibres found under the victim's fingernails did not match those of S's clothes and her fingernails were long and unbroken, suggesting that she had not scratched her attacker, or at least with any great ferocity. (4) In the light of fresh evidence obtained from the DNA profiles, S's conviction was plainly unsafe.Appeal allowed.

[2003] EWCA Crim 1976