AM, R v

AM, R v

The psychological evidence was not relevant to any issue in the case as the applicant's defence was that he did not take the conversations seriously, not that he was compelled or manipulated. There was no question of duress or unreliable confession, and the jury's task was to determine whether the applicant assisted Haque with the requisite intention.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: AM
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
application for leave to appeal against conviction refused
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Preparation for Terrorist Acts, Psychological Vulnerability, Appeals Procedure
Criminal Law Counter Terrorism Admissibility of Expert Evidence Preparation for Terrorist Acts Psychological Vulnerability Appeals Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

AM

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in law by excluding psychological evidence regarding the applicant's suggestibility and compliance
  2. 2 Whether such psychological evidence was relevant to any issue before the jury

Ratio Decidendi

The psychological evidence was not relevant to any issue in the case as the applicant's defence was that he did not take the conversations seriously, not that he was compelled or manipulated. There was no question of duress or unreliable confession, and the jury's task was to determine whether the applicant assisted Haque with the requisite intention.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal against conviction refused