13 June 2022 Priya Vaidya 1292 Case Updates 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 Tags Psychiatry11. Report Writing10. Records Assessments and Site Visits Related articles Lost in translation Degenerative or traumatic spinal damage? Elevate Your Expertise: Join the EWI's Inaugural Study Day in London An approach entirely contradictory to the duties and responsibilities of expert witnesses identified in The Ikarian Reefer Krzysztof Lukasik v Circuit Court, Praga in Warsaw (A Polish Judicial Authority) [2025] EWHC 282 (Admin) Switch article Mooreland and Owenvarragh Residents’ Association, Re Application for Judicial Review [2022] NIQB 40 Previous Article Questions over use of ‘psychological experts’ in parental alienation cases Next Article Comments are only visible to subscribers.