Login Join Us
Wambura v Barrick TZ Ltd [2023] EWHC 2582 (KB) Wambura v Barrick TZ Ltd [2023] EWHC 2582 (KB)

Wambura v Barrick TZ Ltd [2023] EWHC 2582 (KB)

The case involved the question of whether the claimants should have permission to call expert security evidence.
Civil Procedure Rule Committee: Alternative Dispute Resolution consultation Civil Procedure Rule Committee: Alternative Dispute Resolution consultation

Civil Procedure Rule Committee: Alternative Dispute Resolution consultation

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee is consulting on proposed changes to the Civil Procedure Rules to ensure that courts consider alterative...
Expert evidence and an absent defendant Expert evidence and an absent defendant

Expert evidence and an absent defendant

A defendant who chose not to attend or be represented at trial, suggested that he might still instruct his expert witness to provide oral...
EWI welcomes government action on unregulated expert witnesses EWI welcomes government action on unregulated expert witnesses

EWI welcomes government action on unregulated expert witnesses

In a Parliamentary debate, Lord Bellamy, a Minister of Justice, noted the neeed for the Family Procedure Rule Comitttee to develop a...
A Day in the Life of a Threat, Risk and Harm Consultant, Expert Evidence Trainer, and... A Day in the Life of a Threat, Risk and Harm Consultant, Expert Evidence Trainer, and...

A Day in the Life of a Threat, Risk and Harm Consultant, Expert Evidence Trainer, and...

EWI Honorary Fellow Tony Saggers has been a drug trafficking Expert Witness since 1995, alongside a career in law enforcement that spanned 30 years....
Forensic Science Regulator consultation on the code of practice Forensic Science Regulator consultation on the code of practice

Forensic Science Regulator consultation on the code of practice

The Forensic Science Regulator is consulting on the draft for the development of version 2 of the forensic science code of practice.

News

Director of Public Prosecutions v Abdi [2022] IESC 24
Priya Vaidya
/ Categories: Case Updates

Director of Public Prosecutions v Abdi [2022] IESC 24

The case: On 17 April 2001 the Respondent killed his infant son. At his trial in 2003 his defence was one of insanity. This was based on a diagnosis of schizophrenia. The prosecution’s psychiatrist did not accept that he was suffering from schizophrenia. He was convicted of murder on a majority verdict of 10:2. Following conviction he was admitted four times to the Central Mental Hospital, Dublin, and his discharge diagnosis following the last admission was paranoid schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder. He sought leave to appeal against his conviction on the basis that his diagnosis of schizophrenia was a newly discovered fact. Leave was granted and the psychiatrist who had given evidence for the prosecution at his original trial provided  a supplementary report in which the diagnosis was that there was “good evidence to support the defence view that the Defendant’s mental state had started to deteriorate some months prior to April 2001.” A retrial took place in December 2019 and he was found not guilty by reason of insanity. By judgment dated 2 September 2020, it was declared that there had been a miscarriage of justice. The Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. The DPP then appealed to the Supreme Court.    

 

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login

 

 

 

 

                                   

Previous Article Mooreland and Owenvarragh Residents’ Association, Re Application for Judicial Review [2022] NIQB 40
Next Article Questions over use of ‘psychological experts’ in parental alienation cases
Print
856
Comments are only visible to subscribers.