Northern Ireland

Massereene DNA evidence to be allowed

To Download this program click here

Controversial DNA evidence allegedly linking two men to the murder of two soldiers in Northern Ireland is to be allowed, a judge ruled today.

The pioneering computer method is reliable and acceptable, Mr Justice Anthony Hart told Antrim Crown Court.

Colin Duffy and Brian Shivers deny the murder of Sappers Mark Quinsey, 23, and Patrick Azimkar, 21, who were shot outside the Massereene Army base in Antrim in March 2009.

Judge Hart said: "I am satisfied that the stage has now been reached in the case of this system where it can be regarded as being reliable and acceptable and I am satisfied that Dr (Mark) Perlin has given his evidence in a credible and reliable fashion.

"In the light of this conclusion, I can see no basis under which I could possibly exercise my discretion to exclude this evidence and I therefore admit it in evidence."

Sappers Quinsey and Azimkar were shot dead by the Real IRA as they collected pizzas with comrades outside their base.

Duffy, 44, from Forest Glade in Lurgan, Co Armagh, and Shivers, 46, from Sperrin Mews, in Magherafelt, Co Londonderry, deny two charges of murder and the attempted murder of six others - three soldiers, two pizza delivery drivers and a security guard.

Dr Perlin's system strongly linked the two men to the getaway car used in the attack.

He tested DNA data from a seatbelt buckle, a mobile phone and a single matchstick found in or around the Vauxhall Cavalier, which was abandoned partially burnt-out in a country road just a few miles from the shootings.

He said that a DNA sample found on the buckle was 5.91 trillion times more likely to be Duffy's than someone else's, while a sample from inside the phone was 6.01 billion times more likely to belong to Shivers than another person.

The expert also concluded that the DNA on the matchstick was 1.1 million times more likely to be Shivers' than someone else's.

But the academic's "True Allele" method of analysing mixed genetic samples and deriving a likelihood ratio is relatively new and has never once been admitted as evidence in a UK or Irish court, and only on a few occasions in the United States.

Barristers for the accused argued that Dr Perlin had not been candid in his evidence, seeking to keep details of his system for analysing small amounts of DNA from the court.

The judge said: "Having observed Dr Perlin give evidence and considered the points made about his credibility and reliability as an expert, I am satisfied that his evidence in this trial has not been shown to have gone beyond the boundaries of the high standards of truthfulness and objectivity demanded of witnesses in this jurisdiction."

The defence also highlighted his 90% ownership of the company selling the method, alleging that he had a conflict of interest in promoting the system and seeing it accepted by the court.

Mr Justice Hart said Dr Perlin may be frustrated that the merits of his approach may not be as well-recognised as it should be.

But he added that Dr Perlin had sought to answer questions in court comprehensively.

"I am entirely satisfied that his evidence has not been tainted in any way by any benefit to the reputation of him or Cybergenetics (his company) that may follow from his giving evidence in this case and I don't accept that this objection has any substance," he added.