Man given six years for rape cleared by new DNA evidence

Published on Thursday 10 December 2009 21:39

A MAN jailed for rape after going to the aid of a drunken teenager was declared a victim of a miscarriage of justice yesterday.

Desmond Uttley was sentenced to six years after he was found guilty of raping the 15-year-old girl in 2002. But after hearing fresh evidence, judges at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh allowed his challenge against his conviction.

Mr Uttley, 35, had denied raping the girl at his home in Lochend Gardens, Edinburgh, on 14 June, 2002, when he stood trial at the High Court in the city that year.

The girl had been out with a male friend, aged 14, and both got "extremely intoxicated". She was lying on the road in pouring rain when Mr Uttley arrived and helped her friend to pick her up.

He invited them back to his house and carried the girl to his home, where he laid her on a bed and she fell asleep. She told Mr Uttley's trial she felt her clothes coming off and woke to find "the guy was having sex with me".

During the trial, she identified Mr Uttley as her attacker, although she had given police two descriptions of her assailant, neither of which matched him.

Mr Uttley maintained that intercourse did not take place. The jury asked whether tests were carried out on swabs taken from the teenager and if Mr Uttley's DNA was present on them.

The trial judge, Lord Menzies, told them there was no DNA evidence in respect of those swabs.

The appeal court heard that no blood or semen was found on the swabs from the girl and they were not submitted for DNA testing.

Mr Uttley's lawyers led evidence at his appeal from a Strathclyde University forensic science lecturer, Dr Adrian Linacre, who was, in 2004, asked to examine swabs taken from the teenager. He carried out DNA analysis on the Y chromosome that was different from the standard genetic fingerprinting test. He found no DNA matching Mr Uttley, but did find some from three other male sources.

Defence counsel Chris Shead pointed out that Dr Linacre had told agents it was possible that the test might prove adverse for their client, but authority had still been given for it to go ahead.

Lady Dorrian, who heard the appeal with Lady Paton and Lady Smith, said: "At the time of the trial, it is highly debatable that it would even have been possible for the type of test carried out by Dr Linacre to be carried out."

She said the doctor was only beginning his research into Y chromosome testing in 2002 and it was during that year that commercial kits became available for it. Lady Dorrian said there was no doubt Dr Linacre's evidence could be regarded as credible and reliable.

She said the new evidence could have enhanced Mr Uttley's defence by creation of a reasonable doubt. She said: "The complainer had given detailed descriptions of her attacker, neither of which matched her appellant. She nevertheless identified the appellant as that person although he did not match either description."

The judge said the new evidence indicated penetration by someone other than Mr Uttley.

Lady Dorrian said: "We are satisfied the verdict, returned in ignorance of this evidence, must be regarded as a miscarriage of justice."