Citation: [2018] NSWSC 1293
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 17 August 2018
Judge(s): Garling J
Background
This ruling arose during the trial of an accused charged in connection with the 1985 bombing of a Kingdom Hall at Casula. The Crown alleged that DNA belonging to the accused was found in bloodstains on a piece of cardboard recovered from the scene the day after the bombing.
The accused challenged the integrity of the chain of custody of that cardboard, and by extension contested the reliability of the DNA evidence derived from it. The paper bag in which the cardboard had been stored was therefore a potentially significant piece of physical evidence.
The Crown sought to tender the original paper bag, and the accused objected to its admission.
Legal Issues
- Whether the paper evidence bag was adequately identified so as to be admissible
- Whether the wording written on the bag by the officer who prepared it affected the bag's admissibility
Decision
Issue 1: Adequate identification of the evidence bag
The court found that the bag had been sufficiently identified by the witness, Mr Sheather, who confirmed it was the original bag he had used at the scene and that the handwriting on it was his own (at [3], [8]). No basis existed to conclude that the item had not been adequately identified (at [8]).
Issue 2: The wording on the bag
The accused argued that the words written on the bag ("Blood stain cardboard from s/east corner") were inconsistent with what an experienced police officer would write at a murder scene. Garling J noted that no evidence supported that proposition, and in any event the content or adequacy of the words bore no relationship to whether the item was admissible (at [7]-[8]).
Issue 3: Relevance
The court was satisfied that the bag was relevant. The integrity of the cardboard's storage was directly in issue given the accused's challenge to the DNA evidence, and the bag in which the cardboard was kept was material to that question (at [5]-[6]). The court also noted that a photograph of the bag had already been admitted as Exhibit 72 on relevance grounds (at [9]). The bag was found to be relevant and admissible (at [10]).
Orders Made
- The paper evidence bag is admitted and marked as Exhibit 75.
Key Takeaways
- Admissibility of a physical exhibit does not depend on whether the words written on it by an officer were ideal or appropriate in hindsight; such criticism goes to weight, not admissibility (at [8]).
- Sufficient identification of a physical exhibit can be established by the evidence of the officer who created and used it, without more (at [3], [8]).
- Where an accused challenges the integrity of a chain of custody, ancillary items such as the container in which key evidence was stored may themselves be relevant and admissible (at [5]-[6]).
- Prior admission of a photograph depicting an exhibit can support, though is not required for, a finding that the original item is relevant (at [9]).
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Not Applicable
Cases
- Not Applicable