Quinn v. Her Majesty's Advocate

"A DNA taping from the inside of the ski mask was analysed and a DNA profile was obtained which matched the DNA profile of James Patrick Quinn. The probability of finding these matching DNA profiles if this DNA from the inside of the ski mask originated from another male, unrelated to James Quinn, is estimated to be one in more than a billion. Other traces of DNA were also detected in this profile which were, in our opinion, unsuitable for comparison purposes.

The scientific findings would support an assertion that James Quinn has worn the black ski mask. The other traces of DNA could, in our opinion, be from wearing or from handling the ski mask".

[4] Evidence was also led in relation to statements made by the appellant when interviewed by police officers. When asked whether he would have an explanation if his DNA were present on the balaclava, he replied that he would not. Asked if he had ever worn a mask like that, he replied that he did not know, but had probably worn a ski mask at Halloween. He could not remember wearing the mask in question but could not rule out the possibility that he had ever worn a ski mask. He might have worn one when at primary school, but not recently.

[6] In his directions to the jury, the trial judge directed them that they could not reasonably treat the complainer's evidence of his identification of the appellant as reliable. He directed them that Miss D'Arcy's evidence might not be in the same position, but that it was necessary to consider the extent to which her identification of the appellant might have been influenced by the information given to her by the police. He continued:

[7] The trial judge then summarised the evidence relating to the balaclava and the DNA findings, and continued: