Quarterly Update on EWI's Advocacy Work Quarterly Update on EWI's Advocacy Work

Quarterly Update on EWI's Advocacy Work

One of the key roles of the Expert Witness Institute (‘EWI’) is to ensure that policy, rule and regulatory changes are informed by the...
A Day in the Life of a Veterinary Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Veterinary Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Veterinary Expert Witness

Veterinary surgeon, Jeremy Stattersfield, has been guiding courts on veterinary medicine since 1981. He told us how he got into the Expert Witness...
Podcast Episode 21: Responding to Written Questions Podcast Episode 21: Responding to Written Questions

Podcast Episode 21: Responding to Written Questions

In January's episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we discuss responding to written questions. We look at the rules and regulations, discuss a...
LMN v Swansea Bay University Health Board [2025] EWHC 3402 (KB) LMN v Swansea Bay University Health Board [2025] EWHC 3402 (KB)

LMN v Swansea Bay University Health Board [2025] EWHC 3402 (KB)

The claimant, who suffered brain damage at birth, relied on a report commenting on the allegation of negligence prepared by Mrs S, a midwife. The...
The first-time expert The first-time expert

The first-time expert

The details of this case are for gastroenterologists and psychiatrists. The learning points are of general application and although made by an expert...

Check out our Case Updates and Member Magazine

Looking for more news relevant to the Expert Witness community? Why not check out our database of cases relevant to Expert Evidence or the latest and previous editions of our member magazine, Expert Matters.

News

Clicking on one of the topics below will display news items relevant to that topic. You can also use the search bar below to identify news items.

Director of Public Prosecutions v Abdi [2022] IESC 24
Priya Vaidya 2151

Director of Public Prosecutions v Abdi [2022] IESC 24

byPriya Vaidya

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

 

 

 

 

                                   

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.