Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government

proved by corroborated testimony, may of itself be sufficient to prove guilt.This may occur where, for example, the print or DNA is found at the scene ofa housebreaking or on a murder weapon. In that event, the fact of finding theprint or DNA will be sufficient for a conviction if it, and its successfulcomparison to samples taken from the accused, are each spoken to by twowitnesses.7.2.17 It is in this type of area that misunderstandings can occur especially, but by nomeans exclusively, by those not trained in the criminal law. If the finding of afingerprint or DNA sample is one fact amongst several others in a casepointing towards guilt, there is no need for that finding to be spoken to by twowitnesses. One is sufficient where there is other testimony proving the otherfacts. It is only where the finding is the only fact incriminating the accusedthat the finding of the print or DNA, the provenance of the sample taken fromthe accused and the comparison of the two, require to be proved bycorroborated evidence; i.e. the testimony of two witnesses. The problem withthis is that it may well not be known, at the time of the finding or thecomparison of the finding, whether this is the only piece of incriminatingmaterial. Thus, it is the common and accepted practice for there to be twowitnesses 20 to speak to the finding of any print or DNA, two witnesses 21 tospeak to the taking of samples from the then suspect and two witnesses 22 tospeak to the comparison. There is little doubt that this leads to considerable,unnecessary and costly duplication of effort and sometimes testimony 23 .20 e.g. scenes of crime officers21 e.g. police officers or a combination of doctor and police officer22 e.g. fingerprint experts or forensic scientists23 dual testimony is not normally required; 1995 Act ss 280-281263