THE Supreme Court has produced an intriguing court judgment in the matter of “R v King (No 2)”.

Chief Justice Murrell has found Wesley Matthew King not guilty of burgling Lonsdale Street Roasters despite a pair of soiled underpants found at the scene matching his DNA.

In this case, the DNA evidence was the only evidence implicating the accused. Had there been any other evidence tending to implicate the accused which was not related to the DNA evidence, then I may have been satisfied of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, I am not satisfied that guilt is the only available rational inference. There is, for example, a reasonable (albeit small) possibility that the burglar was someone else who was wearing unwashed underpants that had previously been worn by the accused.