Post-trial psychiatric reports constituting revised expert opinions — based on a prisoner's subsequent diagnosis and presentation — can qualify as fresh evidence on appeal even though the evidence depends on events occurring after trial. Where such evidence establishes a significant possibility that a defence of mental impairment would have succeeded, the conviction will be quashed. The fact that defence counsel at trial accepted the defence was not open does not preclude reliance on fresh evidence to raise it on appeal. The question whether clinical psychologists (as distinct from psychiatrists) are qualified to give evidence on mental impairment under s.20 of the 1997 Act was left open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 14 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 14 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.