Regina v Peter Weller

Factual and Procedural Background

On 3 November 2006, the Defendant was convicted at the Crown Court of sexual assault by penetration contrary to section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. The Defendant was released on licence on 6 June of the previous year. The Defendant's solicitors were instructed in May 2007, and an application for leave to appeal against conviction was lodged on 22 August 2008 but refused by a single judge.

The incident arose on 3 March 2006 when the complainant, a 16-year-old female, attended a party at the Defendant's house. After her friend left, the complainant, who was intoxicated and vomiting, stayed overnight with the Defendant's consent. The complainant alleged that the Defendant stroked her body and then penetrated her with his fingers, causing pain. She later reported the incident to the police, and a medical examination revealed small scratches at the entrance to her vagina.

Forensic evidence included DNA found under the Defendant's left-hand nails matching the complainant's DNA. The trial focused on whether this DNA resulted from sexual contact or other forms of contact such as comforting the complainant. The Defendant raised four grounds of appeal, including issues of disclosure, the DNA evidence, and the judge's summing-up.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether there was inadequate disclosure of documents relating to the complainant's initial police statement.
2. Whether the expert evidence regarding the DNA found under the Defendant's nails was properly admitted and accurate.
3. Whether the summing-up by the trial judge was appropriate and free from prejudicial language.
4. Whether further expert evidence should be admitted on the provenance of the DNA evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Alleged inadequate disclosure concerning the complainant's initial police statement about being touched on the breasts.
• Challenges to the DNA evidence, arguing that the expert opinions given at trial were beyond the experts' proper scope and potentially misleading to the jury.
• Criticism of the trial judge's summing-up phraseology, although this was ultimately not pursued as a substantive complaint.
• Application for funding and admission of a further expert report that contradicts the prosecution expert's opinion on the DNA evidence.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the grounds of appeal and found no substance in the complaint regarding disclosure or the summing-up. The central focus was on the DNA evidence, where expert opinions differed on whether the DNA found under the Defendant's nails came from sexual contact or other contact. The court accepted that the prosecution and defence experts had given opinions on the likelihood of the DNA's origin but noted that a new expert report challenged the scientific basis of the prosecution expert's opinion. This raised a significant issue that could have misled the jury.

The court acknowledged that the jury considered other evidence, including undisputed injuries, and the credibility of the parties. However, the new evidence was sufficient to grant leave to appeal on the DNA issue. The court also clarified that whether to admit the new expert evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act would be a matter for the Full Court, recognizing the complexity of that legal question.

Holding and Implications

The court granted leave to appeal against conviction on the ground relating to the new expert report challenging the prosecution's DNA evidence.

This decision allows the Defendant to pursue an appeal focusing on the contested scientific evidence. The court did not set new precedent but left open the question of admitting new expert evidence to the Full Court. The immediate effect is procedural, enabling further examination of the DNA evidence's reliability in the appeal process.