Abstract
ABSTRACT In 1989, serial offender Desmond Applebee was tried in the Australian Capital Territory for the rape of a young woman. A first for Australian courts, the prosecution tendered DNA evidence to counter Applebee’s alibi that he had been unconscious in his car at the time. However, despite the handling of novel scientific evidence being hotly debated at the time, the trial failed to engage with the legal issues this new evidence raised. The defence was unprepared and under-resourced to put into issue evidentiary principles; there was no systemic means for addressing the issues raised by novel scientific evidence if the defence did not do so. This paper argues that the Applebee case is a dissatisfying case of first impression, graphically illustrating the struggles legal systems can have interrogating novel scientific evidence. The case helped smooth adoption of this new form of evidence. How courts receive and respond to scientific evidence is today again in mind owing to the recent quashing of Kathleen Folbigg’s murder conviction following genetic discoveries; Applebee shows why relying on a particular defendant and particular defence counsel to carry out a gate-keeping function for admissibility of novel evidence collides with practical realities of the court system.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.