Another intriguing one from the Supreme Court where one Yousha Sleiman has been knocked back in an effort to avoid getting swabbed for DNA.
Here’s the back story from the judgement of Justice Refshauge:
- It is alleged that at about 2.00 pm on 21 August 2002, two men, at least one of whom was masked, entered a Manuka jeweller’s shop. One of them carried a metal wrench and the other a jemmy bar about 45 centimetres long. The person with the jemmy smashed a glass cabinet and took out of it some diamond rings and other jewellery. The two then left, without the jemmy. The store owner picked up the jemmy and threw it at them, hitting on his upper back the one who had been carrying the wrench. There does not appear to have been any specific identification of the men.
Police attended shortly after and general descriptions of the men were given. The police took possession of the jemmy bar and it was subjected to forensic analysis. Some material was able to be detected on the jemmy and a DNA profile obtained from it.
A vehicle was subsequently located and a mask consistent with that worn by one of the two men was seized. A DNA profile was obtained from material on the mask. That profile was consistent with that obtained from the material from the jemmy bar.
Weekly NewsletterEvery Thursday afternoon, we package up the most-read and trending RiotACT stories of the past seven days and deliver straight to your inbox..
On 16 October 2007, police received information from the National Criminal Investigation DNA Database (NCIDD) that “a match” to the DNA profile from the jemmy bar and the mask had been identified on that part of the Database which had been provided by NSW. The “matching” DNA profile came from Mr Sleiman. This means, as I understand it, that the NSW Police have a sample of material from which a DNA profile has been obtained and that the material which was analysed to produce that profile came from Mr Sleiman.
Mr Sleiman was charged with armed robbery by summons on 28 January 2009 returnable before the ACT Magistrates Court on 20 March 2009.
There follows many pages of dense argument as to why Police shouldn’t be able to take another swab to confirm the match. But many readers will be pleased to learn that in the end they were rejected.
Whoever it was who committed the robbery really needed to watch more of those crime show… how much evidence did they want to leave lying around?