Scam alert – fraudulent email address ‘subpoena@hcourt.gov.au’

The Court is aware of a scam involving the use of a fraudulent email address purporting to be an official High Court email address – ‘subpoena@hcourt.gov.au’ 

This email address is not associated with, authorised by, or operated by the Court. 

Recipients of emails from this account should exercise caution and should not click on links, open attachments or provide personal or financial information. 

Aytugrul v The Queen

[2012] HCA 15
Judgment date
Case number
S315/2011
Before
French CJ, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Bell JJ
Catchwords

Criminal law – Evidence - Admissibility of evidence about DNA analysis - Appellant convicted of murder - Expert gave evidence at trial about mitochondrial DNA testing of hair found on deceased's thumbnail - Expert's statistical evidence given in form of frequency ratio and exclusion percentage - Whether evidence of exclusion percentage relevant given evidence of frequency ratio - Whether probative value of evidence of exclusion percentage outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice to appellant - Whether evidence of exclusion percentage misleading or confusing.

Evidence – Judicial notice - Argument for general rule that evidence of exclusion percentage is always inadmissible due to danger of unfair prejudice - Facts underpinning adoption of general rule not proved - Whether judicial notice can be taken of psychological research said to support adoption of general rule.

Words and phrases – "evidence", "exclusion percentage", "frequency ratio", "judicial notice", "misleading or confusing", "unfair prejudice".

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – ss 135, 137, 144.

Files
15.rtf (67.79 KB)
15.pdf (129.79 KB)