After asking questions about DNA found on a semi-automatic pistol, a Grand Court jury last week found Craig Damian Dilbert not guilty of possessing an unlicensed firearm.
DNA is a substance found in body fluids, including sweat.
The jury had heard that, along with DNA matching Dilbert’s profile, tests of swabs from several locations on the gun showed the major DNA profile to be that of an unidentified female.
The charges, possession of the unlicensed firearm and eight round of ammunition, arose from an incident in April 2005.
Dilbert, 30, gave evidence that he did handle the gun. He explained that he had gone to a marine shop where his boat engine was being repaired. He went to the cooler to buy a drink and reached into a nearby box for a different drink.
What he touched was an Astra A-75 .40 calibre semi-automatic pistol, but he said he didn’t know it at the time. He handled it and looked at it from various sides and wondered if it was a flare gun or a replica gun. He put it back in the box and didn’t say anything to anyone.
At the time, the male owner of the store and a female clerk were present. Both gave evidence that they did not own a firearm. Further, the female said she had handled the box up until lunch time that day and there was no gun in it.
Jurors wanted to know if a DNA sample had been taken from the clerk. They were told it was not.
Neither was the gun tested for fingerprints.
Justice Nigel Meeson instructed the jury that, in law, if Dilbert touched the gun by accident in the box, he would not be guilty of possessing it. If he took the gun into the store with him and put it in the box, he would be in possession and guilty.
The Crown’s case, presented by Senior Crown Counsel Gail Johnson, was that Dilbert had the gun on him and put it in the box when he saw a police officer come into the shop.
The Crown also had Dilbert’s confession, made some five days after the gun was recovered. He confessed that he had bought the gun for $600; he got it for protection because he was under threat.
In giving his evidence, Dilbert said he confessed because he had been roughed up, pressured and threatened by two other men in custody who were also suspected because they were with him at the shop.
He said his confession was false and what he was telling the court was true.
The jury heard that the other two men had convictions for serious criminal offences. There was no DNA evidence linking them to the gun.
After Dilbert gave his account, Ms Johnson asked in cross-examination why he had not said something to anyone about the gun. He said he didn’t tell the clerk because it wasn’t his business. He didn’t tell the police officer who came into the store because the officer was aggressive toward him.
Neither did he tell other officers whom he did not dislike.
In his closing speech, Defence Attorney Philip McGhee told the jury that people cannot be convicted for what they did not do.
As to the confession, he suggested that people under pressure or threats will do things contrary to their own interest.
He asked the jury to consider whether one of the two men in the store with Dilbert might not have put the gun in the box when they saw police come in. The fact that there was no DNA to link them could mean they might have wiped the gun – or maybe their DNA was never on it.
He urged jurors not to be prejudiced by the idea of unlicensed guns in the streets.
Related Videos
