The court upheld an offender’s convictions for murder and attempted murder following the fatal shooting of a member of a rival gang.
A prisoner facing the death penalty following his conviction for the murder of a fellow inmate was not permitted to admit fresh medical evidence in his appeal against conviction and sentence. He had wanted to rely on new evidence relating to his mental state at the time of the offence, with a view to supporting a case of diminished responsibility, but that evidence was directly contrary to the case advanced at trial, and there was nothing to explain the change of position. The Privy Council also rejected his renewed appeal against a judicial direction in respect of evidence of propensity.
The court stated the principles to be applied in sentencing cases where a serious medical condition meant that a lesser sentence should be imposed on an offender than would otherwise be appropriate. In cases of serious ill health, the appeal court might, in rare cases, take account of medical evidence obtained after sentencing which showed a significant deterioration in a medical condition, even when the condition had been known at the date of sentencing. A terminal prognosis should be taken into account in assessing whether imprisonment weighed so much more heavily on an appellant than it did on other prisoners that the sentence length had to be exceptionally reduced.
Due to a fugitive offender’s mental health needs and the risk of suicide if he were extradited, and in the context of an increased prison population in Turkey following an attempted coup and the lack of available healthcare, extradition to Turkey would breach the individual’s ECHR art.3 rights.
A district judge had erred in finding that, on the evidence, it was beyond reasonable doubt that an extraditee was a fugitive and had deliberately absented himself from his trial in Poland. Further, fresh evidence regarding the extraditee’s son’s likely autism diagnosis meant that the balance under ECHR art.8 fell against ordering extradition.