header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
31 January 2008 / Charles Foster
Issue: 7306 / Categories: Features , Public , Legal services , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Untwining the strands

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Low copy number DNA analysis should only be dangerous for the guilty, says Charles Foster

Until the Omagh bombing case (see R v Hoey [2007] NICC 49), low copy number (LCN) DNA analysis was seen as the magic bullet in the prosecutors’ armoury. But it ricocheted off Sean Hoey, causing damage and alarm in the prosecutorial camp. The internet anarchists are delighted. The failure of LCN is seen as a failure of the entire criminal process—an impression bolstered by Mr Justice Weir’s robust denunciation of some of the investigating officers in Hoey.

 

LEARNING LESSONS

The authorities moved fast after judgment was given in Hoey. On the same day, the Association of Chief Police Officers wrote to chief constables, recommending an immediate interim embargo on the use of LCN in criminal investigations in and . This was to give time to learn the lessons of Omagh. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) reviewed all current cases involving LCN. It completed that review on 21 January 2008, concluding

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll