Establishing the Admissibility of Circumstantial DNA Evidence in Conspiracy Cases

Introduction

The Court of Appeal’s judgment in Ward, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 150) represents a significant development in the handling of circumstantial DNA evidence in criminal cases involving conspiracy to commit burglary and theft. The case arose from a series of burglaries in Oxfordshire and centered on evidence obtained from a seemingly unremarkable pair of jeans. The appellant, who had been linked to the offenses via a DNA sample found on the inner waistband of these jeans, argued that the evidence was too tenuous to sustain a conviction. The Crown, however, maintained that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient and that the jury was entitled to infer the appellant’s involvement even if alternative theories, such as secondary transfer, could not be completely ruled out.

The case involved several key parties: the appellant (whose identity is central to the DNA evidence), his co-accused—James Johnson (who pleaded guilty), Johnny Cash, and Anthony Doran (convicted in absentia)—and the police whose investigative efforts linked the crimes to the stolen vehicles and associated physical evidence. The legal debate focused on whether the DNA evidence, coupled with the presence of broken glass fragments on the jeans, established a sufficiently robust link to the crime scene, thereby justifying leaving the case to the jury.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal reviewed the trial proceedings and the evidence presented, particularly scrutinizing the submission of no case to answer raised by the appellant. Lady Justice Whipple, after detailed analysis, concluded that:

The presence of the appellant’s DNA on the inner waistband of the jeans was strongly suggestive of his having worn them, given that primary transfer was deemed far more likely than the less-credible alternative of secondary transfer.
The jeans, although not found at the crime scene, were inferentially linked because they bore glass fragments matching those from the burglary at 79 Burford Road.
The cumulative circumstantial evidence, including the location of the jeans and the contextual details surrounding the apprehension of the co-conspirators, provided a coherent narrative supporting the jury’s conviction.
The judge’s decision to reject the submission of no case to answer was sound, enabling the jury to evaluate all inferences—including any adverse inference arising from the appellant’s decision not to testify.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively discusses and relies on previous cases that address the challenges inherent in DNA evidence and circumstantial inferences:

R v Galbraith: The judge referenced the principles contained in this case regarding the sufficiency of evidence. The decision underscored that the jury’s role is to assess whether, on the evidence as a whole, a rational juror could be persuaded to convict.
R v Goddard [2012] EWCA Crim 1756: This precedent was cited to affirm that in cases where the prosecution’s evidence is largely circumstantial, the jury may safely convict if the evidence presents a logical narrative.
R v Tsekiri [2017] EWCA Crim 40: This is a pivotal case in the context of DNA evidence. It clarifies that a case which relies solely on the presence of DNA may still be left to the jury, provided that the evidence is robust and alternative explanations, while possible, are not more plausible than the direct inference that the DNA originated from the accused.
R v FNC [2015] EWCA Crim 1732: This decision was noted particularly in relation to drawing adverse inferences from a defendant’s failure to testify, elaborating on the limitations of doing so when the case hinges on DNA evidence.

These precedents helped shape the appellate court’s approach, emphasizing that even circumstantial evidence derived from DNA can be compelling when presented in a context that corroborates other material evidence, such as physical traces linking the item to a crime scene.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s legal reasoning emphasizes a systematic approach:

Assessment of DNA Evidence: The court evaluated the scientific testimony regarding the DNA found on the jeans. The Crown’s expert testimony stressed that the presence of the appellant’s DNA on the inner waistband was overwhelmingly more likely to have resulted from direct contact rather than secondary transfer. This assessment critically influenced the decision to allow the jury to interpret the inferences drawn.
Contextual Inferences: Although the jeans were not discovered at the actual scene of the burglary, their forensic linking by the presence of glass fragments created a logical bridge between the crime and the circumstantial evidence on the jeans. The nexus established by these glass fragments was central to the argument that the jeans could be treated as equivalent to an item found at the scene.
Adverse Inference and Defendant Silence: The judgment also highlights that the judge’s directions permitting the jury to draw an adverse inference from the appellant’s silence were within the bounds of proper legal practice, especially given the context that the appellant’s DNA was a key element of the evidence.
Submission of No Case to Answer: The court underscored that, even if alternative explanations for the DNA presence existed, they were not sufficiently substantiated by evidence. As such, when the prosecution’s case was viewed in its entirety, a reasonable jury could have drawn the inference that the appellant’s DNA presence was not coincidental.

Impact

This judgment potentially sets an important precedent that reinforces the admissibility of circumstantial evidence, particularly DNA, in complex criminal crimes:

Strengthening Circumstantial Evidence: Future criminal cases involving DNA evidence may rely more heavily on the circumstantial context if comparable links, such as physical evidence (e.g., glass fragments), can be demonstrated.
Jury Discretion: The decision reinforces the principle that it is within a jury’s purview to weigh the probative value of circumstantial evidence, even when alternative explanations of secondary transfer are theoretically possible.
Guidance on Evaluating Scientific Evidence: The detailed discussion on the factors influencing primary versus secondary DNA transfer gives future courts clearer parameters for evaluating scientific evidence in complex cases.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal and forensic concepts featured in the judgment might appear intricate. Below is a simplified explanation of these key elements:

Primary vs. Secondary DNA Transfer: Primary transfer occurs when DNA is directly deposited by contact (e.g., wearing a garment). Secondary transfer refers to the indirect transfer of DNA from one surface to another. The court found that the probability of direct (primary) transfer was far higher in this case.
Submission of No Case to Answer: This legal argument contends that the prosecution’s evidence is so weak that no reasonable jury could convict. In this case, the judge determined that the cumulative circumstantial evidence was strong enough to allow the jury to reach a verdict.
Adverse Inference: This is a jury instruction that permits jurors to consider a defendant’s silence or failure to testify as a factor in inferring guilt, though not as the sole basis for conviction.
Circumstantial Evidence: Unlike direct evidence, circumstantial evidence indirectly indicates a fact or event through inference. Here, the linking of the jeans to the burglary via glass fragments and DNA is considered circumstantial but persuasive.

Conclusion

The judgment in Ward, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 150) underscores the judicial willingness to uphold convictions based on well-correlated circumstantial evidence even when that evidence relies predominantly on forensic science. By methodically addressing the issues related to DNA transfer, the contextual placement of evidence, and the appropriate use of jury discretion, the Court of Appeal has set a clear precedent: when multiple strands of circumstantial evidence interlock logically, a jury is justified in convicting—even in the presence of possible, yet less likely, alternative explanations.

This case not only reinforces the admissibility of such evidence but also provides clear guidelines for how courts should balance scientific testimony against circumstantial factors, ensuring that the principles of fair adjudication are maintained without unduly discounting technically complex forensic evidence.