CA (Crim Div) (Fulford LJ, Lewis J, Sir Peter Openshaw)
17 March 2020
Where an individual who in 2008 had been convicted of placing a hoax bomb and preparing a terrorist act was subsequently diagnosed as having autistic spectrum disorder, that diagnosis did not affect the safety of his convictions. There had been directly relevant psychological evidence, available at the time of his trial, about his lack of understanding about the consequences of his actions, which his lawyers had chosen not to use because it conflicted with his defence.
CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Spencer J, Griffiths J)
27 February 2020
The court refused to admit fresh psychiatric evidence in support of a possible defence of diminished responsibility to a charge of murder where the defence had not been pursued at trial, despite having been considered and raised in the defence statement. It would not be in the interests of justice to allow the evidence to be adduced.
QBD (Admin) (Holman J)
4 February 2020
An appeal against extradition to Poland was allowed on the basis of fresh evidence both as to the difficult life history of the appellant and his partner and the circumstances of their relationship since the extradition hearing. The offender had already undergone significant punishment and, in the exceptional circumstances of the case, the ECHR art.8 rights of the appellant and his partner outweighed the normally weighty public interest in extradition.
CA (Crim Div) (Fulford LJ, Spencer J, William Davis J)
19 December 2019
It was for the defence at trial to take decisions as to whether to use or act on disclosed unused material, and a failure to inspect such material was unlikely to justify a later application, following conviction, for it to be introduced as fresh evidence. The court emphasised that only in exceptional circumstances would evidence be admitted that could have been adduced at trial.
DC (Dingemans LJ, Lane J)
17 December 2019
The court dismissed a Turkish national’s appeal against extradition on the basis that it was impossible to say that the judge’s decision had been wrong. He had been entitled to accept that an assurance provided by the Turkish authorities sufficiently mitigated the risk of overcrowding; it had identified that he would be detained in a specific prison, there was nothing to suggest that that prison was overcrowded and, importantly, the authorities had also given a specific assurance that the individual would be accommodated in humane conditions.
CA (Crim Div) (Singh LJ, Spencer J, Judge Katz QC)
13 December 2019
Fresh evidence which showed that the complainant had lied in her evidence rendered a conviction for sexual assault unsafe.
QBD (Admin) (Stuart-Smith J)
21 November 2019
Fresh evidence submitted by a requested person did not support the conclusion that her two young children would be left homeless if she was extradited, but rather that her partner would be permitted to look after them. Accordingly, her extradition to Lithuania to face trial for the offence of possession with intent to supply class A drugs did not breach ECHR art.8.
CA (Crim Div) (Thirlwall LJ, Fraser J, Sir David Foskett)
31 July 2019
False identity document offences committed by a victim of human trafficking were quashed as they had been committed in the context of a life of repeated trafficking and sexual exploitation. The offences were integral to, and consequent upon, the trafficking and exploitation so as to extinguish culpability.
CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Edis J, Judge Potter)
24 July 2019
A defendant convicted of murder at the age of 15 was refused an application to adduce fresh psychiatric evidence aimed at explaining his reasons for maintaining his innocence at trial. His admission of guilt after conviction was tactical and made in order to gain sentencing advantage.
CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Lewis J, Julian Knowles J)
5 July 2019
The criteria for admitting fresh evidence in a soldier’s appeal against his conviction on two counts of assault were not met, with the result that his conviction stood.