Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Jason Simmons, post: 3679609, member: 8275"] Don’t know who told you that, but such an error wouldn’t even be picked up until a brief was requested, meaning the test would already have been completed and a certificate produced. The onus is then on defence to serve notice on the commissioner they intend to challenge the certificate and produce evidence to the court the sample was unlawfully obtained. The court then has to consider whether to exclude the evidence or admit it guided by the relevant authority for such a situation ([I]Bunning v Cross[/I] [1978] HCA 22, 141 CLR 54) (HCA) and in such a situation the evidence is very unlikely to be excluded because of a mere technical error on a label, especially if there is no supporting evidence that such error was intentional. In the modern blood kits we use, the only vial of relevance (the one that actually stores the blood and has the powder inside it that keeps the blood from coagulating / decomposing) is pre-labelled and isn’t even written on. The seal is merely the lid, there is no extra ‘seal’ to be placed on it. It then goes into an outer protective tube and then a packing box to be sent off to the JTC. There are a few stickers to be placed onto them, with the exhibit number and one in your notebook for later reference and that is it. There is a reason why Section 80 of the TORUM Act 1995 is so ludicrously long and correcting the issues you’ve mentioned above is what the Parliament has done via legislation. The chances of finding such a ‘loophole’ nowadays is practically nil and then you have the case law above to support you on top of that. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 340 (members: 0, guests: 340)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now