Practice and Procedure

R v UT (2010)

PUBLISHED May 25, 2010

[2010] EWCA Crim 1334

A judge who had properly excluded the opinion of a forensic expert that supported the Crown when allowing her report on DNA evidence to go before the jury, had neglected to draw the distinction made by the expert between the presence of components of the appellant's DNA on the underwear of the victim of a sexual assault, and his actual DNA profile, so that his summing-up was misleading to the jury. The court emphasised the duty of a scientific expert witness to present evidence in a form that a jury could understand.

CA (Crim Div) (Thomas LJ, Openshaw J, MacDuff J)