J appealed against his conviction for conspiracy to possess explosives for an unlawful purpose. He was jointly tried with three others, all of whom were acquitted. The conspiracy was alleged to also involve persons who had not been identified so were not named on the indictment. The prosecution case was that the Appellant and his co-accused were part of an organised crime group conspiring to supply class A drugs in the Warrington area. A series of ‘tit for tat’ incidents had taken place between the group in which the Appellant was allegedly involved and a rival referred to as SS. On 24 February 2018, a hand grenade was located under a car outside SS’s address. The grenade was homemade but was a viable device. Swabs were taken from the grenade before it was detonated in a controlled explosion. The prosecution and defence expert concluded that the sample obtained from the firing pin contained DNA from at least three people and included all of the components in the appellant’s profile. This meant ‘that it was 1 billion times more likely than otherwise that this DNA was that of the appellant’ (at [10]). None of the co-accused contributed any of the DNA that was found. The experts produced a joint statement, which included the following key points:

中文翻译：

---

DNA、二次转移和证据充分性：R v Jones [2020] EWCA Crim 1021 R v Killick (Shane) [2020] EWCA Crim 785

J 就他以非法目的串谋持有炸药的定罪提出上诉。他与其他三人共同受审，均被无罪释放。据称，该阴谋还涉及未确定身份的人，因此未在起诉书中点名。控方的案件是，上诉人和他的同案被告是一个有组织的犯罪集团的成员，他们密谋在沃灵顿地区供应 A 类毒品。据称上诉人参与的团体与被称为 SS 的竞争对手之间发生了一系列“以牙还牙”的事件。2018 年 2 月 24 日，在 SS 地址外的一辆汽车下发现了一枚手榴弹。手榴弹是自制的，但却是一种可行的装置。在手榴弹在受控爆炸中引爆之前，从手榴弹中取出了拭子。检方和辩方专家得出结论，从撞针获得的样本包含至少三个人的 DNA，并且包括上诉人档案中的所有成分。这意味着“该 DNA 是上诉人的 DNA 的可能性是其他情况的 10 亿倍”（见 [10]）。同案犯中没有一个人贡献了所发现的任何 DNA。专家们发表了一份联合声明，其中包括以下要点：