DNA Evidence on a Steering Wheel Was Not Enough – Not Guilty at Parramatta Local Court

The Charge and What Was at Stake

A DNA hit with a statistical weight of over 100 billion. On paper, that sounds impossible to beat. The prosecution had our client's DNA evidence linking him to the steering wheel of a stolen Mercedes and believed the case was straightforward.

They were wrong.

Our client, whom we will call Daniel, was charged under section 154A(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) with knowingly allowing himself to be carried in a vehicle taken without the consent of the owner. The matter was listed for a contested hearing at Parramatta Local Court. Daniel was in custody and facing up to 12 months imprisonment.

At the contested hearing, the charge was dismissed. Daniel was found not guilty.

This is the story of how careful preparation and a willingness to dig into the forensic evidence made the difference.

The Prosecution's Case – Why It Looked Strong

In the early hours of a July morning, two males broke into a secured underground garage at a residential complex in Sydney's south, took a set of keys from inside the premises, and drove off in a Mercedes worth more than $100,000. CCTV captured two males entering the building. The vehicle was not recovered for four days, when police found it parked in an unsecure car space in western Sydney.

Forensic examination of the vehicle produced DNA evidence in the form of a mixed profile on the steering wheel. Daniel was identified as a contributor to that mixture, with a likelihood ratio exceeding 100 billion. In simple terms, the DNA was almost certainly his.

The investigating officer presented the case to Parramatta Local Court as if the DNA evidence told the whole story. A DNA hit that strong, on the steering wheel of a stolen car, must mean Daniel was involved.

For most people charged with a criminal offence, DNA evidence that strong would feel like the end of the road. Many lawyers would advise a guilty plea. We took a different approach.

DNA Proves Contact, Not Crime

The first thing we identified was a point many people overlook: DNA evidence can tell you that someone touched an object, but it cannot tell you when they touched it, how they touched it, or what they knew at the time.

These are not limitations we invented. They come directly from the NSW forensic laboratory's own published guidelines, attached as an appendix to every Expert Certificate the laboratory issues.

Under section 177 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), expert certificates can be tendered without calling the expert to give oral evidence. We made a deliberate decision to require the forensic biologist to attend and give evidence in person, which allowed us to cross-examine him on the contents of his own laboratory's appendix.

That appendix contained several critical concessions about the limits of DNA analysis:

DNA Cannot Be Aged

The laboratory confirmed that methods to determine when a DNA sample was deposited are not in widespread use within forensic laboratories. Nobody could say whether Daniel's DNA ended up on the steering wheel on the night of the theft, or on any of the four days that followed before the vehicle was recovered.

Secondary Transfer Is a Recognised Phenomenon

A person's DNA can end up on an object they have never directly touched. This happens through intermediary contact and is well-established in forensic biology. The laboratory's own appendix described this as "indirect transfer" and confirmed it is scientifically recognised.

No Opinion Was Sought on How or When the DNA Was Deposited

The appendix explicitly states that if how or when DNA was transferred is at issue, the laboratory should be contacted in advance to determine whether an opinion can be provided. Neither the police nor the prosecution ever made that request. The prosecution bore the burden of proof and left this gap unfilled.

No Biological Fluid Testing Was Done

No testing was conducted to determine whether the DNA on the steering wheel came from skin cells, saliva, sweat, or another source. The forensic biologist confirmed he could not say how the DNA got there.

The Four-Day Window the Prosecution Could Not Close

The vehicle was stolen on 21 July and not found until 25 July. For four days, nobody knew where it was, who had it, or how many people were in it.

When a police sergeant from another command stumbled across it during an unrelated call-out, the vehicle was locked, undamaged, with its original registration plates still attached. There was nothing about its appearance that would tell a reasonable person it was stolen.

This created a gap in the prosecution's timeline that they could not close. If Daniel had come into contact with the steering wheel on, say, 23 July, two days after the theft, the DNA evidence would look exactly the same. The prosecution could not exclude that possibility and did not try to.

The condition of the vehicle when it was recovered was significant for another reason. The charge required the prosecution to prove that Daniel knew the vehicle had been taken without the owner's consent. Under section 89 of the Evidence Act 1995, no adverse inference could be drawn from Daniel's decision to exercise his right to silence. The prosecution had to prove knowledge some other way. A locked, undamaged Mercedes with original plates does not scream "stolen car."

The Break-In Scene DNA Excluded Our Client

This was one of the strongest parts of the defence, and one the prosecution never addressed.

Police took two DNA swabs in the investigation. The first was from the steering wheel. The second was from a filing cabinet inside the garage where the vehicle was stolen. The theory was that one of the two offenders touched the cabinet during the break-in.

The filing cabinet swab produced a clear, single-source male DNA profile. It was not Daniel's. The laboratory designated the contributor as an unknown male. Daniel's reference sample was available for comparison and was not matched.

The prosecution's own forensic evidence from the actual crime scene excluded our client. The person who touched the filing cabinet during the break-in was someone else entirely. This was not a neutral finding. It was affirmative evidence pointing away from Daniel's involvement in the theft.

In cross-examination, the investigating officer confirmed that the unknown male from the filing cabinet had never been identified and that no further enquiries had been made to identify him.

A Reluctant Witness and a Story That Fell Apart

The prosecution's other piece of evidence was a witness we will call Troy. His fingerprint had been found on the exterior of the stolen vehicle. Troy was never charged. When police questioned him during an unrelated traffic stop, his account was that Daniel had once driven a "similar-looking vehicle" to a friend's house. He did not identify the stolen Mercedes specifically. He did not provide a registration number, a colour, or any identifying detail.

Eight months later, when the investigating officer called Troy to follow up, Troy's position had changed. He said he didn't even remember what car it was and didn't want to say any more about it.

Troy was compelled to attend the hearing at Parramatta Local Court by subpoena. He had never provided a signed witness statement. Under cross-examination:

• He could not identify the vehicle he claimed to have seen by registration, colour, or any feature
• He could not say when the occasion occurred
• He confirmed that nothing about Daniel's behaviour had struck him as suspicious
• His most recent account to police was that he could not remember the car
• He had his own forensic link to the stolen Mercedes (exterior fingerprint) and was on parole when first questioned, giving him a clear motive to shift attention to someone else

Under section 38 of the Evidence Act 1995, a party can cross-examine its own witness if the witness gives unfavourable evidence. The prosecution faced the prospect of a witness who was either unable or unwilling to help their case, and whose prior account described a different vehicle to the one that was stolen.

Under section 137 of the Evidence Act 1995, the Court must refuse to admit prosecution evidence if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. We submitted that Troy's vague, retracted, and self-serving account had minimal probative value and carried a real risk of unfair prejudice.

The Charge Did Not Match the Evidence

There was a further issue the prosecution never resolved. Daniel was charged with being carried in a stolen vehicle. That is a passenger offence under s 154A(1)(b). But the DNA evidence was found on the steering wheel, which is the primary control surface used by the driver.

If the prosecution's case was that Daniel drove the vehicle, the charge should have been take and drive under s 154A(1)(a). If the case was that he was a passenger, the steering wheel DNA evidence made no sense. The prosecution's own facts sheet alleged that Daniel "drove the vehicle from the location," directly contradicting the charge as laid.

This mismatch told the Court that the prosecution did not actually know what role, if any, Daniel had in relation to the vehicle.

The Verdict: Not Guilty

After hearing all of the evidence and submissions, the Magistrate at Parramatta Local Court dismissed the charge. Daniel was found not guilty.

The result came down to a principle that applies in every criminal case: the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and where the case is entirely circumstantial, guilt must be the only rational conclusion available. In Daniel's case, it was not.

The DNA evidence placed him in contact with the steering wheel at some unknown point, through some unknown method, in some unknown circumstances. The break-in scene DNA excluded him. The vehicle showed no outward signs of being stolen. The prosecution's only identification witness described a different vehicle and later could not remember it at all. Everything else was a gap the prosecution asked the Court to fill with assumptions.

The Court declined to do so.

What This Case Shows About Challenging DNA Evidence in NSW

DNA evidence is powerful, but it is not self-interpreting. A strong statistical match tells you that a person's biological material was present on a surface. It does not tell you the story of how it got there. In criminal proceedings, the story matters just as much as the science.

Several key provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) were central to the defence in this case:

Provision	How It Applied
Section 89 – Right to silence	No adverse inference from Daniel's decision to decline a police interview. The prosecution had to prove knowledge independently.
Section 137 – Exclusion for prejudice	CCTV depicting an uncharged break and enter was challenged as having negligible probative value (neither male could be identified) and substantial prejudice.
Section 177 – Expert certificates	Rather than allowing the certificate to go in unchallenged, we required the forensic biologist to attend and give oral evidence, enabling cross-examination on the laboratory's own stated limitations.
Section 38 – Unfavourable witnesses	The prosecution's identification witness was hostile and unfavourable, raising questions about his reliability and motive.

Cases like Daniel's turn on preparation. We obtained and reviewed every witness statement, the full Expert Certificate and its appendix, the CCTV footage, and the forensic exhibits. We identified that the break-in scene DNA excluded our client before the prosecution had even considered the significance of that result. We read the laboratory's own guidelines and used them to demonstrate, through the prosecution's own expert, that the DNA evidence could not answer the questions the charge required.

Frequently Asked Questions – DNA Evidence and Stolen Vehicle Charges

Q: Can I be convicted based on DNA evidence alone?

A: DNA evidence alone may not be enough to convict, particularly in a circumstantial case. The High Court has held that where a case is entirely circumstantial, the prosecution must exclude all reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence: Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573. DNA on an object proves contact with that object. It does not prove when the contact occurred, how it occurred, or what the person knew at the time. If there are reasonable explanations for the DNA that are consistent with innocence, the prosecution has not proved its case.

Q: What does a "likelihood ratio" of 100 billion mean?

A: A likelihood ratio is a statistical measure of how strongly the DNA evidence supports the proposition that a particular person contributed to a sample, compared to a random person from the population. A ratio of 100 billion means it is 100 billion times more likely that the person contributed the DNA than a random individual. This is very strong evidence of contact, but it says nothing about when, how, or in what circumstances the DNA was deposited.

Q: Can DNA be transferred without direct contact?

A: Yes. Secondary or indirect transfer is a well-recognised phenomenon in forensic biology. A person's DNA can end up on an object they have never directly touched if it is transferred through an intermediary, such as another person or a shared surface. The NSW forensic laboratory's own documentation confirms this.

Q: What is the offence of being "carried in" a stolen vehicle?

A: Under section 154A(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), it is an offence to knowingly allow yourself to be carried in a conveyance that has been taken without the owner's consent. The prosecution must prove: (a) the vehicle was taken without consent; (b) you were carried in it; and (c) at the time, you knew it had been taken without consent. The maximum penalty is 12 months imprisonment. A related but more serious offence under s 154A(1)(a) covers taking and driving the vehicle.

Q: What should I do if police tell me my DNA evidence has been found at a crime scene?

A: Exercise your right to silence. Under section 89 of the Evidence Act 1995, no adverse inference can be drawn from your refusal to answer questions. Contact a criminal defence lawyer immediately. Do not attempt to explain the DNA evidence to police without legal advice. There may be entirely innocent explanations for your DNA being present, and a lawyer can advise you on how to approach the matter strategically.

Q: Can the prosecution rely on CCTV if it doesn't identify me?

A: CCTV that cannot identify the accused has limited probative value. Under section 137 of the Evidence Act 1995, the Court must refuse to admit prosecution evidence if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. If CCTV shows an offence being committed but cannot identify who committed it, a defence lawyer can argue that it should be excluded because it does nothing to advance the prosecution case and risks creating prejudicial associations in the mind of the tribunal of fact.

Q: What is a no-case submission?

A: A no-case submission is an application made at the close of the prosecution's case, before the defence is called upon. It argues that the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, is not capable of sustaining a conviction. The test, established in May v O'Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654, is whether a reasonable tribunal of fact, properly instructed, could convict on the evidence. If the submission succeeds, the charge is dismissed without the accused needing to give or call any evidence.

Facing Criminal Charges at Parramatta Local Court?

At Barsha Defence Lawyers, we specialise in defending criminal charges across Sydney, including contested hearings at Parramatta Local Court. We have the experience to identify weaknesses in forensic evidence that other lawyers miss.

If you have been charged with a stolen vehicle offence, a break and enter, or any criminal matter involving DNA evidence or other forensic material, contact us for a confidential discussion about your case.

Whether the right strategy is a not guilty plea and contested hearing, negotiations with police, or a mental health application, we will give you an honest assessment and fight for the best possible result.

• ✅ FREE initial consultation – understand your options
• ✅ Specialist criminal defence lawyers – we handle contested hearings weekly
• ✅ Thorough forensic analysis – we read the laboratory reports other lawyers skip
• ✅ Available 24/7 for arrests and urgent matters
• ✅ Fixed fees – transparent pricing

Parramatta Office: Suite 48 Level 1/93 George St, Parramatta NSW 2150
Norwest Office: 4 Columbia Court, Norwest NSW 2153 (FREE parking)
Phone: 0474 708 070
Email: [email protected]

Related Articles:

• Property Offences – Your Rights and Options
• Break and Enter Charges in NSW
• Pleading Not Guilty – What to Expect
• Bail Applications – How to Get Bail
• Section 10 Dismissal – Avoid a Criminal Conviction
• Mental Health Applications – Section 14
• What to Do If You're Arrested in Parramatta
• Sydney Criminal Lawyers – Expert Legal Advice

Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Criminal cases involving DNA evidence are highly fact-specific. Outcomes depend on individual circumstances. Names and identifying det