Factual Background
On the evening of July 18, 2017, three complainants (C, F, and P) were robbed at gunpoint by three masked assailants. C and F were raped, and the complainants were kidnapped and taken in their vehicle to various locations. DNA swabs were collected from the complainants, the vehicle, and items at the crime scenes. The appellants, Andrew Parker and Shavez Musgrove, were arrested in November 2017 and provided DNA samples.
DNA Evidence
The prosecution's case against both appellants depended solely on DNA evidence. Parker's DNA was allegedly found on the vehicle's gearstick. Musgrove's DNA was allegedly found on pieces of a torn condom box in the vehicle and at the crime scene. However, the DNA evidence excluded Parker as a contributor to mixed DNA profiles from other items.
Submissions on Appeal
The trial judge did not provide reasons for refusing to exclude the DNA evidence against Musgrove. The DNA analyst was not formally declared an expert witness, though her qualifications were presented. The judge made multiple misdirections and non-directions to the jury regarding the evidence and drawing inferences.
Outcome
Parker's appeal was allowed, and his convictions and sentences were quashed due to the lack of evidence against him. Musgrove's appeal was also allowed, and his convictions and sentences were quashed due to the judge's misdirections to the jury. A retrial was not ordered given the passage of time since the incident.
The Court of Appeal allowed Parker's appeal, stating: "Taken at its highest that evidence could not satisfy the legal standard of proof of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ and therefore the appellant’s no case to answer application at the trial ought to have succeeded."
For Musgrove, the Court found that despite a potential breach of the Police Force Ordinance in retaining his DNA profile, "the decision to admit the evidence, despite a potential breach of the provisions of the Police Force Ordinance, was reasonable."
However, the Court allowed Musgrove's appeal on the ground that the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury, stating: "What was required was a correct but concise summary of the evidence and arguments on both sides, and a correct statement of the inferences which the jury was entitled to draw from their particular conclusions about the primary facts in this summation."
The Court concluded: "After that concatenation of misdirections and non-directions, that there was in substance a succinct but accurate summary of the issues of fact which warranted a decision."
The convictions were therefore quashed as "unsafe."