Norman, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 1112 (01 September 2023)
The experts in this case lacked the necessary cross-disciplinary expertise to opine on the relative likelihood of cannabis versus epilepsy as the cause of the collision; their opinions would have been speculative and outside their proper area of expertise. The exclusion of such evidence did not render the trial...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] EWCA Crim 1112
- Parties
- Appellant: Benjamin Norman; Respondent: Rex (The Crown)
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 01 September 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Expert Evidence, Insanity Defence, Road Traffic Offences, Causing Death by Careless Driving, Ultimate Issue Rule
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Benjamin Norman
Appellant
Rex (The Crown)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether experts should have been permitted to opine on the ultimate issue of the cause of the collision
- 2 Whether the exclusion of expert opinion on the ultimate issue rendered the trial unfair
Ratio Decidendi
The experts in this case lacked the necessary cross-disciplinary expertise to opine on the relative likelihood of cannabis versus epilepsy as the cause of the collision; their opinions would have been speculative and outside their proper area of expertise. The exclusion of such evidence did not render the trial unfair, and the jury was entitled to conclude the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof for insanity.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Conviction upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment