Instruct a DNA testing company
Following a complex relationship case which came to court in 2006 the Judge, Mr Justice Hayden took the unusal step of issuing a public judgement. The judge issued this judgment in open court to highlight some of the issues involved in DNA testing and in paragraph 32 set out a series of points concerning the appointment of DNA testers (3 separate companies were involved in the case) and what a letter of instruction should contain.
Judge Hayden’s opinion was that unless the case was solely confined to paternity testing all requests for DNA testing should be by letter of instruction. This case highlighted the fact that the 3 companies provided a differing level of detail as part of their standard service and in this case that directly influenced the case.
A number of solicitors are cutting and pasting sections of this judgement and this can lead to confusion, hopefully thie following points will remove any confusion.
The letter of instruction should emphasise the responsibility of the DNA company, their overriding obligation must be to the court and if they are under a duty to bring all relevant information on the tests to the attention of the court.
The letter of instruction must set out in clear terms precisely what relationships are to be analysed and, where the information is available, the belief of the parties as to the extent of their relatedness.
If the DNA company is unclear about any of their written instructions, or if they require further guidance, they should confirm them with the solicitor instructing them.
The reports prepared for the court by the DNA experts should bear in mind that they are addressing lay people. The report should strive to interpret their analysis in clear language.
One final comment from Judge Hayden “…Cellmark conducted all the tests undertaken by Anglia DNA but also some further additional tests. Though it is not a feature of the evidence here, I would also add that where any particular test and subsequent ratio of likelihood is regarded as in any way controversial within the mainstream of DNA expertise, the use of the test and the reasons for its use should be signalled to the court within the report.”
You can read the complete judgement by clicking on the following link - Detail