Introduction

The case of Mazzer v ([2024] EWCA Crim 557) presents a significant analysis of the standards governing the admissibility of fresh psychological evidence in criminal appeals within the jurisdiction of England and Wales. This case involves the appellant, Vittor Mazzer, who was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and his subsequent appeal against conviction, challenging the exclusion of evidence pertaining to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The core issues addressed in this appeal revolve around the procedural fairness concerning the introduction of new psychological evidence and whether its omission during the trial undermines the safety of the conviction. The parties involved include the appellant, his legal representation Mr. Alisdair Williams KC, the prosecution, and Professor Farrell, whose psychological assessments played a pivotal role in the proceedings.

Summary of the Judgment

In this judgment, the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) meticulously examined the appellant's application for an extension of time to appeal, encompassing the introduction of fresh psychological evidence supporting his PTSD diagnosis. The court evaluated whether such evidence could render the original convictions unsafe.

The appellate court scrutinized the procedural aspects of admitting fresh evidence under Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. It assessed the relevance, reliability, and direct connection of Professor Farrell's report to the trial evidence. Ultimately, the court determined that the fresh evidence did not meet the stringent criteria required for admission, as it was not sufficiently tethered to the established trial evidence and did not present an arguable ground to overturn the convictions.

Consequently, the court refused the applicant's application to extend the time for his appeal and denied the introduction of the fresh psychological evidence, upholding the original convictions.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several pivotal cases that have shaped the landscape of criminal appeals concerning fresh evidence and psychological defenses:

• R v Press and Thompson [2013] EWCA Crim 1849: This case established that PTSD could be relevant to assessing a defendant's state of mind, particularly in self-defense claims.
• R v B (MA) [2013] 1 Cr App R 36: Reinforced the necessity for expert evidence to be closely linked to the facts of the case.
• R v BRM [2022] EWCA Crim 385: Further clarified the standards for admitting psychological evidence in criminal appeals.
• R v Jacobs [2024] 4 WLR 8: Reviewed and upheld precedents regarding the reliability and relevance of expert psychological assessments.

These precedents collectively emphasize the judiciary's cautious approach to admitting psychological evidence, ensuring it meets rigorous standards of reliability and direct relevance to the case at hand.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on the stringent criteria for admitting fresh evidence under Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The primary considerations included:

• Reliability of the Evidence: The court evaluated whether Professor Farrell's report was methodically sound, adequately reasoned, and directly connected to the facts of the case. It found that the report lacked sufficient tethering to the trial evidence, rendering it unreliable for undermining the safety of the convictions.
• Relevance to the Case: The appraisal focused on whether the PTSD diagnosis could have influenced the appellant's behavior during the incident in a manner that justifies a re-examination of his culpability. The court concluded that the evidence did not convincingly demonstrate that PTSD significantly altered the appellant's perception or actions to a degree that would render the original verdict unsafe.
• Procedural Compliance: Adherence to procedural rules regarding the timing and introduction of new evidence was scrutinized. The failure to present PTSD evidence during the initial trial was not deemed sufficient grounds to overturn the conviction unless it could be shown to have decisively impacted the verdict.

The court underscored that while psychological conditions can be relevant, their introduction as fresh evidence must be directly linked to the trial's factual matrix and subjected to rigorous scrutiny to prevent potential prejudice or confusion in the jury's deliberations.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the high threshold for admitting fresh psychological evidence in criminal appeals. It underscores the necessity for such evidence to not only be reliable and relevant but also intimately connected to the established facts of the case. The ruling serves as a precedent, guiding future appellants and legal practitioners in assessing the viability of introducing new psychological assessments post-conviction.

Additionally, the decision highlights the judiciary's commitment to maintaining the integrity of the trial process, ensuring that appeals based on new evidence meet rigorous standards to prevent unwarranted challenges to convictions. This has broader implications for the defense strategies in criminal cases, emphasizing the importance of timely and comprehensive presentation of all relevant evidence during the trial phase.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Fresh Evidence in Criminal Appeals

In the context of criminal appeals, "fresh evidence" refers to new information or evidence that was not available or presented during the original trial. To be admitted, this evidence must be highly relevant and potentially impactful enough to alter the verdict if it had been considered at trial.

Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968

This section outlines the conditions under which fresh evidence can be introduced in an appeal. Key requirements include that the evidence must be both new and significant enough that if it had been presented during the trial, it might have affected the jury's decision.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in Legal Defense

PTSD is a mental health condition triggered by experiencing or witnessing a traumatic event. In legal defenses, establishing PTSD can be relevant to claims such as self-defense, as it may affect the defendant's perception of threat and subsequent behavior.

Self-Defense and Reasonableness of Force

Self-defense is a legal justification for the use of force to protect oneself from immediate harm. The reasonableness of the force used is assessed based on the perceived threat. Psychological conditions like PTSD can influence this perception, potentially affecting the evaluation of whether the force used was proportionate and necessary.

Conclusion

The Mazzer v ([2024] EWCA Crim 557) judgment serves as a critical reference point in understanding the stringent criteria governing the admissibility of fresh psychological evidence in criminal appeals within England and Wales. By meticulously evaluating the reliability, relevance, and procedural adherence of Professor Farrell's PTSD report, the Court of Appeal reinforced the necessity for such evidence to be intrinsically linked to the trial's factual context.

This decision not only upholds the principles of judicial fairness and procedural integrity but also delineates clear boundaries for future appeals seeking to introduce new psychological assessments. Legal practitioners must, therefore, ensure that any such evidence is robustly substantiated and directly pertinent to the case to withstand judicial scrutiny.

Ultimately, Mazzer underscores the judiciary's role in balancing the fair consideration of new evidence with the imperative to protect the finality and reliability of criminal convictions, thereby shaping the contours of appellate advocacy in cases involving psychological defenses.