The Unrepresented Accused and the DNA Evidence
An accused is charged with armed robbery in the District Court at Brisbane. He is self-represented. The Crown relies on a DNA match on a balaclava found near the scene. The accused, in cross-examining the DNA analyst, repeatedly asks whether the laboratory 'ever makes mistakes' and whether the analyst 'personally checked every sample'. The Crown objects on relevance and form. The accused also seeks to call a witness who was not on his witness list and whose statement was served late. The trial judge must decide the cross-examination objections and the late-witness application in a way that is fair to an unrepresented litigant while maintaining the integrity of the trial. The accused says he did not understand the prosecution's notice requirements.
1. How should the judge handle the relevance and form objections to the accused's cross-examination?
Read the worked answer
The judge must ensure a fair trial, including for a self-represented accused, but must also enforce the rules of evidence. The question whether the laboratory 'ever makes mistakes' is relevant to the reliability of the DNA evidence, but a bare assertion of general fallibility is of limited probative value and may be objectionable in form. The judge should explain the objection to the accused in plain terms and allow a reformulated question directed to the specific testing process, chain of custody, and error rates. The question whether the analyst personally checked every sample may be relevant to the analyst's knowledge but could be misleading if it implies a personal guarantee; the judge should permit a question about the laboratory's procedures and the analyst's role. The judge should not simply uphold the objection and leave the accused without an avenue; the fair course is to explain and permit properly framed questions. The judge may also ask questions to clarify the evidence. The overriding duty is to ensure the accused can challenge the evidence meaningfully without allowing irrelevant or oppressive questioning.
2. What factors govern the late-witness application, and what order is appropriate?
Read the worked answer
The court has a discretion to allow a late witness, considering the reason for the delay, the prejudice to the Crown, the availability of the witness, and the interests of justice. The accused's lack of understanding of notice requirements is relevant but not decisive; the court should consider whether the Crown can meet the evidence and whether an adjournment would cure prejudice. The judge should also consider whether the witness's evidence is relevant and whether the accused has had a fair opportunity to prepare. If the evidence is material and the Crown can be given time to consider it, the court may allow the witness with an adjournment and appropriate directions. If the evidence is not relevant or the prejudice cannot be cured, the court may refuse. The judge should give reasons and ensure the accused understands the ruling. The approach should balance fairness to the accused against the need for orderly trial management, and the judge should consider whether the late service was the fault of the accused or of the court process.