Prosecution and defence teams in the trial of Colin and Brian have been arguing for and against the use of the new form of testing pioneered in the US.

 

Dr Mark Perlin - the Crown's chief expert witness from the US - used a computer-based statistical method to assess DNA taken from items in the alleged getaway car.

 

The Defence had argued that Dr Perlin's evidence was unreliable because it had not been properly validated and also that he was set to gain financially if the judge allowed it in this case.

 

On Thursday, Mr Justice Hart said he was satisfied the method was reliable and had been validated by the scientific community, ruling it admissible in court.  "I can see no basis under which I could possibly exercise my discretion to exclude this evidence and I therefore admit it in evidence,"  said Mr Justice Hart

 

The decision is a first in the UK and Ireland, with the form of analysis never before admitted as evidence - only on a few occasions in the US.

 

"I am satisfied that the stage has now been reached in the case of this system where it can be regarded as being reliable and acceptable and I am satisfied that Dr Perlin has given his evidence in a credible and reliable fashion," Mr Justice Hart told the Diplock court.

 

Barristers for Colin and Brian had argued that Dr Perlin had not been candid in his evidence and also alleged a conflict of interest in promoting and having the system accepted by the court, given his 90% ownership in the company which sells it.  However, the trial judge said: "I am entirely satisfied that his evidence has not been tainted in any way by any benefit to the reputation of him, or Cybergenetics, that may follow from his giving evidence in this case and I don't accept that this objection has any substance."

 

To read the full text of the judgment click:  Judgement on the admissibility of DNA evidence