Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

DNA Evidence Under the Microscope: Why the Presumption of Innocence Is Under Threat in Ireland

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Justiciability of Human Rights Law in Domestic Jurisdictions

Abstract

DNA is formidable evidence which is becoming increasingly relied upon by the prosecution in Ireland. In many jurisdictions, courts and criminal investigators have been quick to seize upon its probative power—apparently slow to acknowledge the potential for fallibility. Yet despite DNA’s clear advantages, research demonstrates that the interpretation of certain DNA mixtures may be subject to bias. What is more, the scientific community continues to warn that there is still no definitive frame of reference for interpreting certain mixed DNA profiles. There are two additional problems running parallel to this in Ireland. First, the presumption of innocence is marginalised in the jurisdiction. Second, the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence and Database System) Act 2014 raises a number of human dignity and rights concerns which present the ancient legal precept of presumed innocence with even further challenges in Ireland. The purpose of this chapter is therefore to investigate the extent to which DNA evidence imperils the presumption of innocence in Ireland.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Kaye (2010).

  2. 2.

    Dror and Hampikian (2011), pp. 204–208.

  3. 3.

    Thompson et al. (2003a, b), pp. 16–25 and 47–54.

  4. 4.

    Wayne (2011).

  5. 5.

    Butler (2010).

  6. 6.

    Swanson et al. (2010).

  7. 7.

    Aronson (2007).

  8. 8.

    Puch-Solis et al. (2012).

  9. 9.

    Ibid.

  10. 10.

    Butler (2010).

  11. 11.

    Ibid.

  12. 12.

    Thompson et al. (2003b).

  13. 13.

    Heffernan and Ní Raifeartaigh (2014).

  14. 14.

    Puch-Solis et al. (2012).

  15. 15.

    The Law Reform Commission (2005).

  16. 16.

    Puch-Solis et al. (2012).

  17. 17.

    Goodwin et al. (2007).

  18. 18.

    Koehler (2001), pp. 1275–1305.

  19. 19.

    Ibid.

  20. 20.

    Briody (2004), pp. 231–252.

  21. 21.

    Prainsack (2010), pp. 15–39.

  22. 22.

    Thompson and Schumann (1987), pp. 167–187.

  23. 23.

    The Law Reform Commission (2005).

  24. 24.

    Butler (2010).

  25. 25.

    Prainsack (2010).

  26. 26.

    Thompson (2008).

  27. 27.

    R v Jama (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria – Court of Appeal, Warren CJ and Redlich and Bongiorno JJA, 7 December 2009).

  28. 28.

    Vincent (2010).

  29. 29.

    Aronson (2007).

  30. 30.

    Prainsack (2010).

  31. 31.

    Dror and Hampikian (2011).

  32. 32.

    Ibid.

  33. 33.

    Ibid.

  34. 34.

    Ibid.

  35. 35.

    Dror et al. (2006), pp. 74–78.

  36. 36.

    Budowle et al. (2009), pp. 810–821.

  37. 37.

    Myers (2008).

  38. 38.

    Gill (2014).

  39. 39.

    Budowle et al. (2009).

  40. 40.

    Dror et al. (2006).

  41. 41.

    Ibid.

  42. 42.

    Buckleton and Curran (2008), pp. 343–348.

  43. 43.

    Jamieson (2008), pp. 1031–1046.

  44. 44.

    Paoletti et al. (2012), pp. 113–122.

  45. 45.

    Ibid.

  46. 46.

    Ibid.

  47. 47.

    Paoletti et al. (2005), pp. 1361–1366.

  48. 48.

    Ibid.

  49. 49.

    Thompson et al. (2003b).

  50. 50.

    Naughton and Tan (2011), pp. 245–257.

  51. 51.

    Thompson et al. (2003b).

  52. 52.

    Ibid.

  53. 53.

    Gill et al. (2006), pp. 90–101.

  54. 54.

    Thompson et al. (2003b).

  55. 55.

    Jamieson (2008).

  56. 56.

    Ibid.

  57. 57.

    Ibid.

  58. 58.

    Ibid.

  59. 59.

    Thompson et al. (2003b).

  60. 60.

    Ibid.

  61. 61.

    Gill et al. (2006).

  62. 62.

    Thompson et al. (2003b).

  63. 63.

    Ibid.

  64. 64.

    Wayne (2011).

  65. 65.

    Garrett and Neufeld (2009), pp. 1–97.

  66. 66.

    Naughton and Tan (2011).

  67. 67.

    Wayne (2011).

  68. 68.

    Ibid.

  69. 69.

    Thompson et al. (2003b).

  70. 70.

    Jamieson (2008).

  71. 71.

    Yttri Dahl (2010), pp. 197–217.

  72. 72.

    Ryan (2012).

  73. 73.

    People (AG) v O’Callaghan [1966] IR 501.

  74. 74.

    DPP v Gormley, DPP v White [2014] IESC 17.

  75. 75.

    Ryan (2012).

  76. 76.

    BBC News (2009).

  77. 77.

    Corns (1992).

  78. 78.

    Woolmington v DPP [1935] 1 AC 462, [1935] AC 462, [1935] UKHL 1, (1936) 25 Cr App R 72.

  79. 79.

    Schwikkard (1998).

  80. 80.

    Quintard-Morénas (2010).

  81. 81.

    Stumer (2010).

  82. 82.

    Quintard-Morénas (2010).

  83. 83.

    Naughton (2011).

  84. 84.

    Hill et al. (2008).

  85. 85.

    Dror et al. (2006).

  86. 86.

    Hill et al. (2008).

  87. 87.

    Meissner and Kassin (2004), pp. 85–106.

  88. 88.

    Kassin et al. (2007).

  89. 89.

    DPP v Gormley, DPP v White [2014] IESC 17.

  90. 90.

    Ryan (2012).

  91. 91.

    DPP v Gormley, DPP v White [2014] IESC 17.

  92. 92.

    Thompson et al. (2003b).

  93. 93.

    Garrett and Neufeld (2009).

  94. 94.

    Thompson et al. (2003b).

  95. 95.

    Heffernan and Ní Raifeartaigh (2014).

  96. 96.

    Ibid.

  97. 97.

    People (DPP) v Lawlor Central Criminal Court (2 Dec 1995) (Court of Appeal Feb 2001, unreported).

  98. 98.

    People (DPP) v Horgan (reported Irish Examiner 25 June 2002).

  99. 99.

    Law Reform Commission Consultation Paper: Expert Evidence (2008).

  100. 100.

    Conway et al. (2010).

  101. 101.

    S and Marper v United Kingdom [2008] ECHR 1581, (2009) 48 EHRR 50, 25 BHRC 557, 48 EHRR 50, [2009] Crim LR 355.

  102. 102.

    Irish Human Rights Commission (2013).

  103. 103.

    Kassin et al. (2003).

  104. 104.

    DPP v O’Callaghan [2013] IECCA 46 (31 July 2013).

  105. 105.

    Jamieson (2008).

  106. 106.

    People (DPP) v Allen [2003] IR 295.

  107. 107.

    Heffernan and Ní Raifeartaigh (2014).

References

  • Aronson, J. (2007). Genetic witness: Science, law and controversy in the making of DNA profiling. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • BBC News. (2009). DNA fingerprinting 25 years old. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/8247641.stm. Accessed 15 Feb 2015.

  • Briody, M. (2004). The effects of DNA evidence on homicide cases in court. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 37, 231–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckleton, J., & Curran, J. (2008). A discussion of the merits of random man not excluded and likelihood ratios. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 2(4), 343–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budowle, B., Onorato, A., Callaghan, T., Della Mann, A., Gross, A., Guerrieri, R., et al. (2009). Mixture interpretation: Defining the relevant features for guidelines for the assessment of mixed DNA profiles in forensic casework. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54(4), 810–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (2010). Fundamentals of forensic DNA typing. London: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conway, V., Daly, Y., & Schweppe, J. (2010). Irish criminal justice: Theory, process and procedure. Dublin, Ireland: Clarus Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corns, C. (1992). The science of justice and the justice in science. Law in Context, 10(2), 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dror, I., Charlton, D., & Péron, A. (2006). Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International, 156, 74–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dror, I., & Hampikian, G. (2011). Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Science and Justice, 51, 204–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, B., & Neufeld, P. (2009). Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful convictions. Virginia Law Review, 95(1), 1–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill, P. (2014). Misleading DNA evidence: Reasons for miscarriages of justice. London: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill, P., Brenner, C. H., Buckleton, J. S., Carracedo, A., Krawczak, M., Mayr, W. R., et al. (2006). DNA Commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures. Forensic Science International, 160, 90–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, W., Linacre, A., & Hadi, S. (2007). An introduction to forensic genetics. Chichester, England: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heffernan, L., & Ní Raifeartaigh, Ú. (2014). Evidence in criminal trials. Dublin, Ireland: Bloomsbury Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C., Memon, A., & McGeorge, P. (2008). The role of confirmation bias in suspect interviews: A systematic evaluation. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 357–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irish Human Rights Commission, Observations on the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence and DNA Database System) Bill 2013. http://www.ihrec.ie/download/pdf/final_obs_on_the_dna_crim_justice_bill_2013_doc_ff.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2014.

  • Jamieson, A. (2008). The philosophy of forensic scientific identification. Hastings Law Journal, 59, 1031–1046.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S., Richard, M., Leo, A., Meissner, C. A., Richman, K. D., Colwell, L. H., et al. (2007). Police interviewing and interrogation: A self-report survey of police practices and beliefs. Law and Human Behaviour, 31, 381–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M., Goldstein, C. C., & Savitsky, K. (2003). Behavioural confirmation in the interrogation room: On the dangers of presuming guilt. Law and Human Behaviour, 27(2), 186–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, D. (2010). The double helix and the law of evidence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, J. (2001). The psychology of numbers in the courtroom: How to make DNA match statistics seem impressive or insufficient. Southern California Law Review, 74, 1275–1305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law Reform Commission Consultation Paper: Expert Evidence (2008) http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/cpexpertevidence.pdf

  • McInerney, P. (2010). “Equality of Arms” between the suspect interrogated in Garda custody and the Gardai. Judicial Studies Institute Journal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meissner, C., & Kassin, S. (2004). You’re guilty, so just confess! Cognitive and behavioural confirmation biases in the interrogation room. In G. D. Lassiter (Ed.), Interrogations, confession and entrapment (pp. 85–106). New York: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, D. (2008). Social psychology. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naughton, M. (2011). How the presumption of innocence renders the innocent vulnerable to wrongful convictions. Irish Journal of Legal Studies, 2, 40–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naughton, M., & Tan, G. (2011). The need for caution in the use of DNA evidence to avoid convicting the innocent. The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 15, 245–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paoletti, D., Doom, T., Krane, C., Raymer, M., & Krane, D. (2005). Empirical analysis of the STR profiles resulting from conceptual mixtures. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 50(6), 1361–1366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paoletti, D., Krane, D., Raymer, M., & Doom, T. (2012). Inferring the number of contributors to mixed DNA profiles. IEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, 9(1), 113–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prainsack, B. (2010). Key issues in DNA profiling and databasing: Implications for governance. In R. Hindmarsh & B. Prainsack (Eds.), Genetic suspects: Global governance of forensic DNA profiling and databasing (pp. 15–39). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Puch-Solis, R., Roberts, P., Pope, S., & Aitken, C. (2012). Assessing the probative value of DNA evidence: Guidance for judges, lawyers, forensic scientists and expert witnesses. London: Royal Statistical Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quintard-Morénas, F. (2010). The presumption of innocence in the French and Anglo-American legal traditions. American Journal of Comparative Law, 58, 107–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, A. (2012). Ireland. In K. Ligeti (Ed.), Toward a prosecutor for the European Union Volume 1: A comparative analysis. Oxford, England: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwikkard, P. J. (1998). The presumption of innocence: What is it? South African Journal of Criminal Justice, 396–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stumer, A. (2010). The presumption of innocence, evidential and human rights perspectives. Oxford, England: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, T., Kim, S., & Glucksman, M. (2010). Biochemistry, molecular biology and genetics. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Law Reform Commission. (2005). The establishment of a DNA database. http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/reports/rdnadatabase.pdf

  • Thompson, W. (2008). The potential for error in forensic DNA testing and how that complicates the use of DNA databases for criminal identification. http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pageDocuments/H4T5EOYUZI.pdf. Accessed 01.06.15.

  • Thompson, W., Ford, S., Doom, T., Raymer, M., & Krane, D. (2003a). Evaluating forensic evidence: Essential elements of a competent defense review. The Champion, 27, 16–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, W., & Schumann, E. (1987). Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: The prosecutor’s fallacy and the defense attorney’s fallacy. Law and Human Behaviour, 11, 167–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, W., Taroni, F., & Aitken, C. (2003b). How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48(1), 47–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincent, The Honourable F.H.R. (2010). Inquiry into the circumstances that led to the conviction of Mr. Farah Abdulkadir Jama. Victorian Government Printer. http://assets.justice.vic.gov.au/justice/resources/4cd228fd-f61d-4449-b655-ad98323c4ccc/vincentreportfinal6may2010.pdf. Accessed 03.12.14.

  • Wayne, L. (2011). Turning the investigation on the science of forensics. NACDL statement to Senate Science Committee. http://www.nacdl.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=23226. Accessed 20.02.15.

  • Yttri Dahl, J. (2010). DNA the Nor-way: Black-boxing the evidence and monopolising the key. In R. Hindmarsh & B. Prainsack (Eds.), Genetic suspects: Global governance of forensic DNA profiling and databasing (pp. 197–217). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

List of Cases

  • DPP v Gormley, DPP v White [2014] IESC 17

    Google Scholar 

  • DPP v O’Callaghan [2013] IECCA 46 (31 July 2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • People (AG) v O’Callaghan [1996] IR 501

    Google Scholar 

  • People (DPP) v Lawlor (Central Criminal Court 2 Dec 1995); (Court of Appeal Feb 2001) unreported

    Google Scholar 

  • People (DPP) v Allen [2003] IR 295

    Google Scholar 

  • R v Jama (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria — Court of Appeal, Warren CJ, Redlich and Bongiorno JJA, 7 December 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  • S and Marper v United Kingdon (2009) 48 EHRR 50.

    Google Scholar 

  • State v. Timothy Edward Durham, No. CF-91-4922 (Okla. Dist. Ct. Mar. 9, 1993)

    Google Scholar 

  • People (DPP) V Horgan Irish Examiner 25 June 2002

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Crime, Justice and Victim Studies, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

    Michelle-Thérèse Stevenson

Authors
  1. Michelle-Thérèse Stevenson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michelle-Thérèse Stevenson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law and Criminology, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Lancashire, United Kingdom

    Alice Diver

  2. School of Law, Northumbria University, Newcastle, United Kingdom

    Jacinta Miller

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Stevenson, MT. (2016). DNA Evidence Under the Microscope: Why the Presumption of Innocence Is Under Threat in Ireland. In: Diver, A., Miller, J. (eds) Justiciability of Human Rights Law in Domestic Jurisdictions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24016-9_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24016-9_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24014-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24016-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation