The court upheld a conviction for manslaughter and two counts of unlawful wounding where the offender had deliberately driven into another car, resulting in the death of the driver and injury to the two passengers. Evidence given at the trial by an accident and collision investigator had not been inadmissible, and fresh evidence, which the offender claimed could undermine that evidence, did not satisfy the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 s.23(2)(b).
ADMISSIBILITY OF FRESH EVIDENCE
The repeal of Bulgarian law, under which an extraditee was alleged to have committed an offence in the European arrest warrant, did not affect the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian prosecuting authority to try the offence under the law that was in force at the relevant time.
Given that it was inappropriate for the court to receive fresh evidence that was either not central to the issue at trial or was simply a reiteration of the defendant’s expert’s evidence advanced at trial, but by a different expert, the defendant’s conviction for causing grievous bodily harm with intent was safe.
A conviction for murder was quashed and a verdict of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility was substituted where the trial judge had delivered a jury direction on diminished responsibility along the same lines as that which was held to be a misdirection in R v Dietschmann (Anthony) (2003) UKHL 10, (2003) Crim LR 550.