Chandler v. The State (Trinidad and Tobago)

Smart Summary

Privy Council Decision: [2018] UKPC 5

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant and the deceased were remand prisoners at The Prison in The City. On 8 October 2004, during preparations for prisoners’ visits, the Appellant allegedly stabbed the deceased with an improvised knife, causing a fatal chest wound.

The first trial in March 2009 ended in a hung jury. At the second trial, which began in June 2011, the Appellant did not testify and denied possessing any weapon. On 17 August 2011 he was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by hanging. The Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago dismissed his appeal on 12 December 2013.

In this Privy Council appeal the Appellant (1) renewed a challenge to the trial judge’s direction on propensity evidence and (2) sought to adduce fresh psychiatric evidence to support a defence of diminished responsibility, an issue not raised at trial or before the Court of Appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the trial judge’s directions to the jury on bad-character/propensity evidence were adequate and fair.
Whether, in the interests of justice, fresh psychiatric evidence should be admitted on appeal to support a defence of diminished responsibility, and if so, whether the conviction is unsafe.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments

The judge failed to give sufficiently detailed directions on the limited relevance of a later prison stabbing (“the Haynes incident”), particularly the five-year gap and its isolated nature.
Fresh reports by The Psychiatrist show it is “more likely than not” that the Appellant was psychotic at the time of the killing, satisfying the statutory test for diminished responsibility.
The omission at trial resulted from a failure by previous counsel and the court to investigate the Appellant’s mental health; therefore the interests of justice require admission of the new evidence and remission to the Court of Appeal.

Respondent’s Arguments

The judge’s directions were clear, warned against prejudice, and placed the bad-character evidence in proper context; no unfairness arose.
The proposed psychiatric evidence would be inconsistent with the defence run at trial (complete denial) and thus fails the high threshold for admission of fresh evidence.
Experienced trial counsel must have considered and rejected any mental-health defence; the Appellant himself has never asserted that his mental state contributed to the killing, and there is no indication he would now change that position.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Adenusi [2006] EWCA Crim 1059	Guidance on admitting bad-character evidence to show propensity.	Used to justify admission of the Haynes incident at trial; no challenge to the decision to admit, only to the jury direction.
Pitman v The State [2008] UKPC 16	Appellate power to admit fresh evidence if necessary in the interests of justice.	Set the statutory framework for considering the new psychiatric reports.
Brown (Richard) v The Queen [2016] UKPC 6	High hurdle for admitting evidence inconsistent with the defence run at trial.	Relied on to stress that advancing a new, inconsistent defence post-conviction would subvert the trial process.
R v Erskine and Williams [2009] EWCA Crim 1425	Factors relevant to receiving fresh evidence on appeal, especially when inconsistent defences are involved.	Cited to illustrate the “forensic difficulty” of changing defences and the need for persuasive explanation.
Pitman and Hernandez v The State [2017] UKPC 6	Concerns about raising mental-condition defences for the first time on appeal.	Supported the view that late psychiatric evidence should be admitted only exceptionally.
Brown (Nigel) v The State [2012] UKPC 2	Admission of fresh evidence relating to fitness to plead.	Distinguished as dealing with fitness to plead, not diminished responsibility.
Daniel v The State [2012] UKPC 15	Example where fresh evidence of diminished responsibility was admitted.	Distinguished: in Daniel the new defence was consistent with the trial stance; here it is directly contrary.
R v CCRC, Ex parte Pearson [1999] 3 All ER 498	Overriding discretion of the court to admit fresh evidence notwithstanding procedural failures.	Quoted but not found decisive on the facts.

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

Propensity Direction. The Board accepted minor criticisms that the judge did not expressly mention the five-year gap or isolated nature of the Haynes incident, but held the jury would have been well aware of these matters and had been adequately warned against unfair prejudice. No objection was raised at trial despite the judge’s invitation. The summing-up, viewed as a whole, remained fair.

Fresh Psychiatric Evidence. Applying section 47 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Trinidad and Tobago) and the authorities above, the Board noted:

The proposed evidence would introduce a defence (diminished responsibility) that was entirely inconsistent with the denial maintained at both trials.
No satisfactory explanation was provided for the failure to pursue a mental-health defence earlier; there was no evidence it had been overlooked rather than deliberately rejected.
The Appellant, of normal intelligence, has never linked the killing to psychotic symptoms, unlike his candid admissions about another stabbing.
There is no indication the Appellant himself now wishes to advance the new defence.

In those circumstances the interests of justice did not require the late admission of the material. The Board distinguished Daniel, where the fresh defence was consistent with the position taken at trial.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED. The application to admit fresh psychiatric evidence was refused, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Implications: The decision reinforces the high threshold for admitting fresh evidence that contradicts the defence run at trial and emphasises the need for early investigation of mental-health issues in murder cases. No new legal principle was created; existing jurisprudence on bad-character directions and fresh evidence was applied.

Click here to read the full judgment

Chandler v The State (Trinidad and Tobago)