Rashid, R v

Rashid, R v

The court held that the applicant was not mentally vulnerable at the time of the police interview, the confession was properly admitted, the judge was correct to limit the intermediary to the applicant's evidence, and Dr Lock's expert evidence was admissible. There was no unfairness or procedural error, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Applicant: Yahya Rashid
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal against conviction refused; conviction upheld.
Legal Topics
Terrorism Offences, Police Interview Admissibility, Mental Vulnerability, Use of Intermediaries, Expert Evidence, Appeals Procedure
Criminal Law Terrorism Offences Police Interview Admissibility Mental Vulnerability Use of Intermediaries Expert Evidence Appeals Procedure

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Yahya Rashid

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's police interview should have been excluded due to mental vulnerability and lack of appropriate adult
  2. 2 Whether an intermediary should have been provided for the applicant throughout the trial
  3. 3 Whether the expert evidence of Dr Lock was admissible

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant was not mentally vulnerable at the time of the police interview, the confession was properly admitted, the judge was correct to limit the intermediary to the applicant's evidence, and Dr Lock's expert evidence was admissible. There was no unfairness or procedural error, and the conviction was safe.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal against conviction refused; conviction upheld.