Seamus Burns reports on the ramifications of R v Sean Hoey
The recent acquittal of Sean Hoey (see R v Sean Hoey [2007] NICC 49, 20/12/2007) and the swingeing criticisms by Mr Justice Weir of the use of forensic evidence, including low copy number DNA (LCNDNA), in the case, highlight the huge drawbacks if forensic techniques are not used correctly or its results are misinterpreted.
The defendant, Sean Hoey, had been charged with a variety of offences arising from 13 incidents including mortar attacks on army bases, RUC bases, and car bombs in towns, including the Omagh car bomb on 15 August 1998. There were three strands to the prosecution's case.
- ● It was argued there was alledged common authorship of the Mark 19 TPUs, (timer power units, which detonate the bombs/ fire the mortars at a certain time), namely an examination of the manufacture of the Mark 19 TPUS, “that are known to have been used in 11 of the first 12 incidents and others found in other
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
