Approved Judgment
THE HON. SIR JONATHAN COHENThis judgment was delivered in private. The judge has subsequently authorised the publication of this judgment.
- Approved Judgment
- The Hon. Sir Jonathan Cohen :
- Events of 1984-1985
- Without the technical data from the FSS report we cannot confirm that it is the same mutation but both mutations did appear on the paternal side of the DNA.
- Yes, in the case of the FSS report, you could potentially find someone after 710 tests on unrelated individuals to find a similar test. However, our testing of 25 markers now means you would have to test 21,204,093 people before you found someone with that same profile. With further testing, and increasing the number or tested markets, this number could again increase. Statistically there were -37 people in the population of India in 1985 out of a population of 784million that could have this profile. This is statistically, not a guarantee.
- There is no way to ascertain that a mutation has occurred and the mismatch is not due to other factors. However, with further testing there are ways to get even more data and strengthen the DNA reports issued. You could test related males who to eliminate them as potential fathers to the point that the only feasible explanation is a mutation.
- Yes the similarity between human to human is higher. Approximately 99.6% of the DNA is shared. The other 0.4% makes up the highly variable sections of DNA that are used in generic comparisons. This 0.4% is about 12million areas of variability in the 3.2 billion that make up the human genome.
- Yes the probability of paternity we have calculated is based on the DNA test alone. We don’t know any circumstances of the case.
- The current test suggests that they were taken from the same people but this cannot be verified without comparable technical data or collection records.
- Yes.
- A DNA test is not an isolated source of evidence, as factors have led to the use of said test. The DNA test is taken to support the evidence already established.
- Costs