R v Dallagher
A murder conviction based mainly on expert evidence identifying ear prints on a window was quashed, because fresh evidence showed that the reliability of ear print identification was disputed among experts.
Facts
Mr Dallagher was convicted of the murder of an elderly woman in her home. The main evidence against him was the evidence of two experts that ear prints found on a window of the house, through which the murderer was believed to have entered, matched his ears. At his appeal, he relied on fresh expert evidence that ear print identification was not generally accepted as reliable, and that the method used had not been properly validated.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial. Kennedy LJ said that expert evidence of a novel kind is admissible if it is sufficiently well established to pass the ordinary tests of relevance and reliability, and that it was for the jury to evaluate it. The prosecution evidence had been admissible, but the fresh evidence, which showed that there was a substantial dispute among experts about the reliability of ear print identification, might reasonably have affected the jury's decision, so the conviction was unsafe. DNA evidence later showed that Mr Dallagher could not have left the ear prints, and the prosecution offered no evidence at the retrial.
Related cases on witnesses, identification and expert evidence
- Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13, [2011] 2 AC 398
- Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP [2016] UKSC 6, [2016] 1 WLR 597
- R v Barker [2010] EWCA Crim 4
- R v Cannings [2004] EWCA Crim 1
- R v Clark (Sally) [2003] EWCA Crim 1020
- R v Davis [2008] UKHL 36, [2008] 1 AC 1128
- R v Forbes [2001] 1 AC 473
- R v Lucas [1981] QB 720
Studying evidence? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
