Cleaver Greene
Verified Attorney - Australia
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2015
- Messages
- 404
- Reaction score
- 2,906
I believe that WAPOL had enough evidence to arrest BE without any DNA evidence. Familial DNA is very contentious and I haven't been able to find any Australian cases where a defendant was convicted on familial DNA. If you read the articles discussing familial DNA you will see that it is a controversial area with only a couple of states in the USA that have accepted it.
In Australia, the general principle is that DNA can only be taken if there is a reasonable suspicion of offending, or if a person volunteers their DNA. This is because Australia has an expectation of privacy and that the government can only take our personal information under certain circumstances. The ability to obtain familial DNA to then link a person to certain crimes encroaches on that privacy.
If a judge finds that the DNA was not lawfully obtained, then it could be excluded, as will all evidence obtained as a result of the DNA match. In my opinion it would be very risky for WAPOL to arrest someone based on familial DNA, because it is such a controversial area. It would be disastrous for everybody if BE was arrested and charged based on unlawfully obtained evidence and he is then acquitted because the evidence is excluded.
One day familial DNA will be tested in an Australian court and a judge will make a decision about whether it is admissible. I just think that running this argument on an accused serial killer is too big a risk.
All just my opinion.
In Australia, the general principle is that DNA can only be taken if there is a reasonable suspicion of offending, or if a person volunteers their DNA. This is because Australia has an expectation of privacy and that the government can only take our personal information under certain circumstances. The ability to obtain familial DNA to then link a person to certain crimes encroaches on that privacy.
If a judge finds that the DNA was not lawfully obtained, then it could be excluded, as will all evidence obtained as a result of the DNA match. In my opinion it would be very risky for WAPOL to arrest someone based on familial DNA, because it is such a controversial area. It would be disastrous for everybody if BE was arrested and charged based on unlawfully obtained evidence and he is then acquitted because the evidence is excluded.
One day familial DNA will be tested in an Australian court and a judge will make a decision about whether it is admissible. I just think that running this argument on an accused serial killer is too big a risk.
All just my opinion.