Pinfold, Mackenney v Regina: CACD 15 Dec 2003

The appellants challenged their convictions for murder. The convictions had been based substantially upon the evidence of a co-accused who had admitted his part. They now challenged the admission by way of support of the evidence of the co-defendant of medical opinion as to his reliability, where the doctor had not physically examined the witness. The witness had since rescinded his evidence.
Held: ‘. . these convictions are unsafe. We say this despite the fact that we cannot determine where the truth lies as to these murders. However, in the light of the whole of the fresh evidence that we have before us, considered in the context of the evidence at the trial we have come to the conclusion that Childs’ evidence is so unreliable that it is worthless. The appellants’ convictions depended on Childs’ evidence. ‘
Mr Justice Aikens Lord Chief Justice Of England And Wales Mr Justice Davis
[2003] EWCA Crim 3643, Times 09-Jan-2004, [2004] 2 Cr App R 5
England and Wales
CitedRegina v Stafford CACD 1968
The court considered the admission of evidence which had become available only after the trial.
Held: ‘public mischief would ensue and legal process could become indefinitely prolonged were it the case that evidence produced at any time would . .
CitedStafford v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1974
The House rejected the submission of counsel that the Court of Appeal had asked the wrong question by taking as the test the effect of the fresh evidence on their mind and not the effect that the evidence would have had on the mind of the jury. It . .
CitedRegina v Lattimore CACD 1975
‘. . . It is also inconceivable that the court would receive inadmissible evidence; for the court must act according to law.’ . .
CitedRegina v Koerns CACD 2000
. .
CitedRegina v Pendleton HL 13-Dec-2001
The defendant had appealed his conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal. The 1968 Act required the court to consider whether the conviction was unsafe. New evidence was before the Court of Appeal, but they had rejected the appeal.
Held: . .
ApprovedRegina v O’Brien; Regina v Hall; Regina v Sherwood CACD 16-Feb-2000
It is proper for the court to admit psychiatric evidence of a defendant’s particular readiness to make false confessions. Such evidence should however be closely circumscribed, and should include for example, that it makes the evidence gained . .
CitedRegina v Ward CACD 1993
The court considered the admission of medical evidence to support other evidence against a defendant as to his propensity. ‘But we conclude on the authorities as they now stand that the expert evidence of a psychiatrist or a psychologist may . .
CitedRegina v Turner (Terence) CACD 1974
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He admitted that he had killed his girlfriend with a hammer, but sought to bring psychiatric evidence that he was susceptible to provocation.
Held: The law jealously guards the role of . .
CitedRegina v Woolwich Justices ex parte Toohey, Toohey v Metropolitan Police 1965
The court described the limits for the admission of psychiatric evidence in criminal trials. . .
CitedRegina v Fell CACD 22-Mar-2001
Expert medical evidence has to be based on a physical examination of the witness whose credibility is being impugned before it can be admitted. . .

Cited by:
See AlsoChilds (Aka Greenfield), Regina v CACD 30-Sep-2014
In 1979 the defendant had been convicted on his plea, of six murders and subsequently of robbery with 25 similar offences taken into consideration. Now he sought ;eave to appeal bringing evidene of a personality disorder such that nothing he said, . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 March 2021; Ref: scu.188847