R v Marvin Samuels

R v Marvin Samuels

The proposed fresh evidence does not afford grounds for allowing the appeal, as it does not undermine the jury's conclusion that any abnormality of mental functioning did not substantially impair the applicant's responsibility at the time of the killing. The evidence is not sufficiently new or compelling to justify admission, and the application for extension of time and leave to appeal is refused.

Parties
Respondent: Rex; Applicant: Marvin Samuels
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time, Leave to Adduce Fresh Evidence, and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Murder, Manslaughter, Diminished Responsibility, Fresh Evidence, Extension of Time, Mental Health, Personality Disorder, Paranoid Schizophrenia
Criminal Law Murder Manslaughter Diminished Responsibility Fresh Evidence Extension of Time Mental Health Personality Disorder +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Marvin Samuels

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time, Leave to Adduce Fresh Evidence, and Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh psychiatric evidence should be admitted on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the conviction for murder is unsafe due to alleged misdiagnosis of mental condition
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's responsibility was substantially diminished by mental abnormality

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed fresh evidence does not afford grounds for allowing the appeal, as it does not undermine the jury's conclusion that any abnormality of mental functioning did not substantially impair the applicant's responsibility at the time of the killing. The evidence is not sufficiently new or compelling to justify admission, and the application for extension of time and leave to appeal is refused.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • application for extension of time refused
  • application for leave to adduce fresh evidence refused