The appellant had been convicted of the murder of his wife. A pathologist gave evidence that the cause of death was due to compression of the neck. He preferred not to call it strangulation because he had never seen a case of death from such a cause with less outward or internal signs of injury. He did however make findings which led him to the opinion that there had been continuous pressure on the deceased woman’s neck maintained for a period of thirty seconds. While the defence had the assistance of an expert pathologist, he was never called. On the hearing of the appeal, the appellant sought leave to call a distinguished pathologist who had been consulted following conviction and who had read the whole of the evidence, consulted with both the prosecution pathologist and the defence pathologist and had seen the neck structures which had been preserved by the prosecution pathologist. As a result of his study, he disagreed profoundly with the prosecution pathologist, stating the there was no evidence to support his view of firm, continuous pressure for at least thirty seconds. He felt that the compression could well have been for a very few seconds only.
Held: An appeal court will not readily admit expert evidence as fresh evidence where the necessary expertise was available at the time of trial.
Citations:
(1969) 53 Cr App R 256
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.519360
