Blagrove (Oliver) v R.pdf - The Court of Appeal

stood near to a person who discharged a firearm can acquire such accumulation. Thisevidence he said should have been considered by the learned judge moreso, as theapplicant was willing to have his hands swabbed.[29] Mrs Gordon-Harrison, for the Crown, submitted that it would indeed be mostunusual for swabs taken of a suspect's/accused's hands to be made available at trialfor any purpose whatsoever. She submitted that the usual practice, which has beenaccepted by the courts as being satisfactory, is that the analyst's certificate andevidence would speak to the findings of the tests conducted on the relevant swabs.Counsel submitted nevertheless, that there was some paucity of evidence in relation tothe integrity of the chain of custody which should exist in a bid to satisfy the tribunalof fact that the same swabs that were taken of the hands of the applicant were in factthe ones submitted to the analyst for testing. She submitted however, that despite thisconcession (in part), even if this aspect of the evidence were treated with diminishedregard, there is other evidence which is sufficient to substantiate the finding of guilt bythe learned trial judge.[30] In relation to ground 2, counsel submitted that there was sufficient evidence toestablish and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that both witnesses were in fact dead.She argued that the evidence of Detective Sergeant Norman had providedoverwhelming evidence in proof of death of both witnesses.