Mulindwa, R. v [2017] EWCA Crim 416 (06 April 2017)

Mulindwa, R. v [2017] EWCA Crim 416 (06 April 2017)

It was not an error of law for the judge to conclude that, with appropriate safeguards and strictly limited expert evidence, it was not undesirable for the defendant to give evidence. The adverse inference direction was properly given, and the conviction is safe.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Crim 416
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Defendant: Mulindwa
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
renewed application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Adverse Inference, Mental Disorder, Fitness to Give Evidence, Section 35 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Expert Evidence, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Adverse Inference Mental Disorder Fitness to Give Evidence Section 35 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Expert Evidence Credibility of Witnesses

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Mulindwa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was undesirable for the defendant to give evidence due to his mental disorder under section 35(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in permitting or envisaging expert psychological evidence to explain the defendant's presentation to the jury
  3. 3 Whether the adverse inference direction was appropriate in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

It was not an error of law for the judge to conclude that, with appropriate safeguards and strictly limited expert evidence, it was not undesirable for the defendant to give evidence. The adverse inference direction was properly given, and the conviction is safe.

Court Disposition

renewed application for leave to appeal refused