Fell, R v [2001] EWCA Crim 696 (22nd March, 2001)

Fell, R v [2001] EWCA Crim 696 (22nd March, 2001)

The conviction is unsafe because fresh psychological evidence demonstrates the appellant's admissions were unreliable, and material non-disclosure further undermined the fairness of the trial. The confession evidence, central to the prosecution case, cannot be regarded as reliable, and the jury would likely have reached a different verdict had they heard the expert evidence.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Crim 696
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Peter Alan Fell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment on Referral From Criminal Cases Review Commission
Outcome
conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Confession Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Fresh Evidence, Psychological Evidence, Non Disclosure, Safety of Conviction
Criminal Law Evidence Law Confession Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Fresh Evidence Psychological Evidence Non Disclosure Safety of Conviction

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Peter Alan Fell

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment on Referral From Criminal Cases Review Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's conviction for murder is safe in light of fresh psychological evidence and material non-disclosure
  2. 2 Whether the confession evidence was reliable and properly admitted
  3. 3 Whether denial of access to a solicitor rendered the confession inadmissible

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction is unsafe because fresh psychological evidence demonstrates the appellant's admissions were unreliable, and material non-disclosure further undermined the fairness of the trial. The confession evidence, central to the prosecution case, cannot be regarded as reliable, and the jury would likely have reached a different verdict had they heard the expert evidence.

Court Disposition

conviction quashed

Orders

  • Conviction for murder quashed
  • No retrial ordered