‘One in 1.1 billion’: DNA results revealed in fake gun trial

A NORTHERN NSW man accused of robbing a Gold Coast tavern with a fake gun made of duct tape held his head in his hands as a jury was told the probability of DNA at the scene belonging to another person was "approximately one in 1.1 billion".

The result came from a swab by police of a "possible glove piece" linked to Peter James Hasrouny's alleged robbery of the Currumbin Creek Tavern on October 25, 2009.

Queensland Health Forensic and Scientific Services scientist Allan McNevin told the Southport District Court yesterday: "We estimated that the probability of this DNA profile occurring if the DNA had come from someone unrelated to Peter Hasrouny would be approximately one in 1.1 billion."

Peter Hasrouny has been accused of the crime. Picture: Jerad Williams
Peter Hasrouny has been accused of the crime. Picture: Jerad Williams

Speaking about a second suspected piece of glove found under the tape of the fake weapon, Mr McNevin said: "The probability of that DNA profile occurring if someone other than Peter Hasrouny had deposited DNA would be approximately 1 in 130 billion."

Hasrouny, 52, has pleaded not guilty to the masked robbery of the tavern, in which two workers were bound with duct tape and more than $55,800 was stolen.

It is alleged the Kunghur man - a regular at the Currumbin tavern - forced his way in about 2am.

Hasrouny was charged in 2016 after police obtained a DNA sample, the court was told.

Crown prosecutor Michael Mitchell called Mr McNevin as a witness to explain DNA results.

Mr McNevin said it was "highly unlikely for people to share the same (DNA) information".

However, under questioning by defence barrister John Cook, Mr McNevin said there was "many, many variables involved" in DNA testing.

Mr McNevin confirmed he did not personally collect any of the samples tested, or compile the DNA report himself.

Hasrouney has pleaded not guilty. Picture: Jerad Williams
Hasrouney has pleaded not guilty. Picture: Jerad Williams

Asked if a sneeze might "cause DNA to come from the mouth", Mr McNevin said it could occur.

Mr Cook also questioned whether testing showed how DNA ended up on a surface.

"DNA tested doesn't determine how the DNA was deposited, we just can detect presence or absence of the DNA and make comparison," Mr McNevin replied.

Advancements have been made in DNA testing since items were examined a decade ago, he said.

Mr Mitchell also called several police officers as witnesses, who detailed investigations.

It is expected Mr Mitchell will close his case this morning.
The trial continues.