Client acquitted despite evidence of the defendant’s DNA at the scene of the crime. Eliza Harris for the defence.

Introduction

Eliza Harris, instructed by David Bell of Breydons Solicitors, represented a 20-year-old man charged with domestic burglary. That a burglary had taken place was not disputed; the Complainant’s evidence was that two males had entered her home in the middle of the day and attempted to steal her belongings. The prosecution’s case was that Eliza’s client was Male 1, and his co-defendant was Male 2. Their case centred around undisputed evidence that both males’ DNA profiles had been found on the external door handle of the Complainant’s home. The client’s co-defendant (with whom he was also friends) had already pleaded guilty, leaving just Eliza’s client to face trial.om he was also friends) had already pleaded guilty, leaving just Eliza’s client to face trial.

Defence case

The defence case was that a burglary occurred, but the defendant was not there. The co-defendant may have borrowed one of his hoodies and used the sleeve to open the door handle, thereby depositing the defendant’s DNA via secondary transfer.

DNA evidence and expert reports

The Crown’s expert provided two reports, both of which were agreed evidence. In the first he stated that there was a mixed profile on the door handle, comprising of four DNA profiles, two of them significant. According to the expert, it was at least one billion times more likely that the two significant profiles detected originated from Eliza’s client and his co-defendant than from anyone else, although there may be “alternative explanations”.

In his second report, the expert confirmed that one such alternative explanation was that an item of the defendant’s clothing was used or worn by an individual who had contact with the door handle. It was therefore possible that the defendant’s DNA could have arrived on the door handle by secondary transfer.

Trial proceedings

Although his DNA was on the door handle, no other evidence pointed towards Eliza’s client being involved.

Eliza cross-examined the Officer in the Case, who conceded that the Scenes of Crime Officers had not found any of the defendant’s fingerprints at the scene. Despite the complainant’s allegation that Male 1 had pushed the complainant twice to the shoulders with flat palms, none of his DNA was found on her shirt, which was forensically examined. None of the defendant’s clothes were ever seized or forensically examined, and there was no evidence placing him in the area at the time.

At the close of the Prosecution’s case, Eliza made a submission of no case to answer under the second limb of Galbraith [1981] 1 W.L.R. 1039. The application applied the principles set down by the Court of Appeal in R v Tsekiri [2017] EWCA Crim 40, a case concerning submissions of no case to answer in cases based on DNA evidence. The application was considered overnight and ultimately refused.

Verdict and outcome

The defendant gave evidence, stating that he would get lifts with the co-defendant and sometimes leave items of clothing in the car; he had not been anywhere near the scene of the burglary. On being cross-examined, he confirmed that he did not know what the co-defendant did with those clothes. The jury retired just before lunch and returned a not guilty verdict just after lunch.

About the barrister

Eliza Harris was called to the bar in 2024. She became a member of Drystone Chambers in October 2025 following the successful completion of her pupillage.

To instruct Eliza, contact her clerks Ryan Bartlett or Amie Harris on 020 7404 1881.