Sossongo v. England and Wales: Impact of Undiagnosed Autism and ADHD on Criminal Conviction

Introduction

Sossongo v. England and Wales ([2021] EWCA Crim 1777) is a landmark case adjudicated by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in England and Wales. The appellant, a 19-year-old at the time of the appeal, was convicted of murder and two related offenses of violence committed when he was merely 14 years old. The conviction was subsequently referred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) due to the emergence of fresh evidence indicating that the appellant suffered from undiagnosed Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) at the time of the offense and trial. This commentary delves into the intricacies of the judgment, exploring the legal principles established, the court’s reasoning, and the broader implications for the criminal justice system.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal scrutinized the appellant’s conviction for murder and related violent offenses. The critical factor prompting the appeal was the discovery of ASD and ADHD diagnoses post-conviction, which were not considered during the original trial. The court acknowledged that these conditions could have significantly influenced the jury's perception of the appellant's culpability and credibility. Consequently, the court found the original conviction unsafe, quashed it, and ordered a retrial, emphasizing the necessity of considering mental health conditions in ensuring a fair trial.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced several prior cases where undiagnosed mental impairments influenced convictions, including R v Thompson [2014] EWCA Crim 836, R v Grant-Murray and others [2017] EWCA Crim 1228, R v Lammar Gordon [2018] EWCA Crim 1555, and R v Roddis [2020] EWCA Crim 396. These cases highlight the judicial system's evolving recognition of the importance of diagnosing and considering mental health conditions in criminal proceedings. The court emphasized that each case must be assessed on its facts, and the mere presence of a mental disorder does not automatically render a conviction unsafe.

Legal Reasoning

The court's reasoning hinged on the relevance of the appellant's ASD and ADHD diagnoses to his criminal responsibility and the fairness of his trial. Under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, fresh evidence can be admitted if it meets certain criteria, which the court determined Dr. Anderson’s and Dr. Cumming’s reports did. The court considered whether the jury, without knowledge of these diagnoses, could have made a fair and accurate assessment of the appellant's credibility and involvement in the offenses. The court concluded that the absence of this information likely impaired the jury's ability to evaluate the appellant's intentions and understanding, leading to an unsafe conviction.

Additionally, the court examined the trial's procedural aspects, noting the differential treatment between the appellant and his co-accused, especially regarding the accommodation of mental health conditions. The lack of similar support for the appellant, compared to his co-defendant M who received an intermediary and expert testimony, further underscored the unfairness of the original trial proceedings.

Impact

This judgment significantly influences future criminal cases by reinforcing the necessity of recognizing and accommodating mental health conditions to ensure fair trials. It underscores the judiciary's responsibility to adapt trial procedures to the needs of defendants with such conditions, potentially leading to more standardized practices in disclosing and considering mental health information. Moreover, it may prompt legal professionals to be more diligent in identifying and addressing mental health issues during pre-trial preparations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)

ASD is a developmental disorder characterized by difficulties in social interaction, communication, and restricted or repetitive patterns of behavior. Individuals with ASD may struggle with understanding social cues and may interpret information literally, affecting their interactions and responses in various settings, including courtrooms.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

ADHD is a neurodevelopmental disorder marked by inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. These symptoms can impair an individual’s ability to focus, follow instructions, and control impulses, which can affect their behavior and interactions during a trial.

Joint Enterprise

Joint enterprise is a legal doctrine in criminal law where multiple individuals can be held liable for a crime if they are deemed to have shared a common intention to commit that crime. In this case, the appellant was convicted as a secondary party under joint enterprise, meaning he was held responsible for the actions of his co-defendants.

Conclusion

The Sossongo v. England and Wales judgment is a pivotal moment in criminal law, highlighting the critical importance of recognizing and integrating mental health considerations into the judicial process. By acknowledging that undiagnosed ASD and ADHD can significantly affect a defendant's behavior and trial performance, the court reinforced the principles of fairness and justice. This case sets a precedent for future assessments of criminal responsibility, ensuring that defendants receive equitable treatment regardless of underlying mental health conditions. Ultimately, it serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s obligation to continually adapt and uphold the integrity of the legal system by accommodating the diverse needs of those who stand before it.