A Perth woman has won a landmark appeal against a court order for her to provide DNA in a paternity dispute after it was ruled submitting a mouth swab against her will could be an assault. <\/p>\n
The unanimous decision by three Court of Appeal judges set aside a Supreme Court order and is one of the first to support a person's right to refuse DNA testing in non-criminal cases. <\/p>\n
It adds weight to the argument such testing could be an assault. <\/p>\n
The woman, 61, was ordered to have DNA testing last year after a woman claimed to be her younger half-sister from an affair her mother had with the other woman's father in Austria in 1960. <\/p>\n
The man died in 2008 and the second woman, 52, sought a share of his estate as his daughter. <\/p>\n
The older woman rejected the claim and a request for her DNA but Supreme Court Master Craig Sanderson ordered the mouth swab for \"kinship analysis\". <\/p>\n
In his appeal decision last week, Justice Christopher Pullin found courts could not order the woman to consent to what would otherwise be an assault. <\/p>\n
He said WA's Criminal Code stated a person who touched or applied force of any kind to another person without their consent was said to assault that person. <\/p>\n
The woman did not consent to the swab, so any force applied by the doctor while taking it would be a criminal assault. <\/p>\n
Justice Graeme Murphy said ordering someone to submit to a DNA test in a civil case failed to recognise \"bodily integrity\". <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Here is the original post: A Perth woman has won a landmark appeal against a court order for her to provide DNA in a paternity dispute after it was ruled submitting a mouth swab against her will could be an assault. The unanimous decision by three Court of Appeal judges set aside a Supreme Court order and is one of the first to support a person's right to refuse DNA testing in non-criminal cases. Continue reading
\nCourt backs DNA test refusal<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"