Pacemaker PTSD? Pacemaker PTSD?

Pacemaker PTSD?

This is primarily a case for cardiologists, cardiac nurses and anaesthetists with a learning point for psychiatric experts. Viewed from outside the...
Advising as to the applicable law Advising as to the applicable law

Advising as to the applicable law

The detail of this judgment is for experts who conduct capacity assessments. Two points arise of more general interest. First, the expert, who had...
Evidentiary reliability and the meaning of words Evidentiary reliability and the meaning of words

Evidentiary reliability and the meaning of words

This case has a number of important features of general interest. It illustrates the importance of assessing the reliability of a subject’s...
Podcast Episode 11: AI and the Expert Witness Podcast Episode 11: AI and the Expert Witness

Podcast Episode 11: AI and the Expert Witness

In the 11th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we take a look at how AI is being used by Expert Witnesses. We discuss general developments related...
EWI publishes new Guidance on Expert Discussions and Joint Statements EWI publishes new Guidance on Expert Discussions and Joint Statements

EWI publishes new Guidance on Expert Discussions and Joint Statements

We have just refreshed our guidance on ‘Expert Discussions and Joint Statements' in the EWI Knowledge Hub...

Check out our Case Updates and Member Magazine

Looking for more news relevant to the Expert Witness community? Why not check out our database of cases relevant to Expert Evidence or the latest and previous editions of our member magazine, Expert Matters.

News

Clicking on one of the topics below will display news items relevant to that topic. You can also use the search bar below to identify news items.

Director of Public Prosecutions v Abdi [2022] IESC 24
Priya Vaidya 1351

Director of Public Prosecutions v Abdi [2022] IESC 24

byPriya Vaidya

The case: On 17 April 2001 the Respondent killed his infant son. At his trial in 2003 his defence was one of insanity. This was based on a diagnosis of schizophrenia. The prosecution’s psychiatrist did not accept that he was suffering from schizophrenia. He was convicted of murder on a majority verdict of 10:2. Following conviction he was admitted four times to the Central Mental Hospital, Dublin, and his discharge diagnosis following the last admission was paranoid schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder. He sought leave to appeal against his conviction on the basis that his diagnosis of schizophrenia was a newly discovered fact. Leave was granted and the psychiatrist who had given evidence for the prosecution at his original trial provided  a supplementary report in which the diagnosis was that there was “good evidence to support the defence view that the Defendant’s mental state had started to deteriorate some months prior to April 2001.” A retrial took place in December 2019 and he was found not guilty by reason of insanity. By judgment dated 2 September 2020, it was declared that there had been a miscarriage of justice. The Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. The DPP then appealed to the Supreme Court.    

 

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login

 

 

 

 

                                   

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.