CRIMINAL DIVISION
The Strand London WC2 |
||
B e f o r e :
(LORD JUSTICE ROSE)
MR JUSTICE BUCKLEY
and
MR JUSTICE CURTIS
____________________
R E G I N A | ||
- v - | ||
ALLEN SMITH |
____________________
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR P MAKEPEACE appeared on behalf of the CROWN
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"Human evidence shares the frailties of those who give it. It is subject to many crosscurrents such as partiality, prejudice, self interest and, above all imagination and inaccuracy. Those are matters with which the jury, helped by cross examination and common sense, must do their best. But when a witness through physical (in which I include mental) disease or abnormality is not capable of giving a true or reliable account to the jury, it must surely be allowable for medical science to reveal this vital hidden fact to them. If a witness purported to give evidence of something which he believed that he had seen at a distance of fifty yards, it must surely be possible to call the evidence of an oculist to the effect that the witness could not possibly see anything at a greater distance than twenty yards, or the evidence of a surgeon who had removed a cataract from which the witness was suffering at the material time which would have prevented him from seeing what he thought he saw. So, too, must it be allowable to call medical evidence of mental illness which makes a witness incapable of giving reliable evidence, whether through the existence of delusions or otherwise. It is obviously in the interest of justice that such evidence should be available."
"Medical evidence is admissible to show that a witness suffers from such disease or defect or abnormality of mind that affects the reliability of his evidence. Such evidence is not confined to a general opinion of the unreliability of the witness, but may give all the matters necessary to show not only the foundation of and reasons for the diagnosis but also the extent to which the credibility of the witness is affected."
"We agree with the learned judge that if a witness is suffering from a mental disability it may, in a proper case, well be permissible to call psychiatric evidence to show that the witnesses is incapable of giving reliable evidence. We are prepared to accept that the mental illness need not be such as to make the witness totally incapable of giving accurate evidence, but it must substantially affect the witness's capacity to give reliable evidence. But this is very different from calling psychiatric evidence with a view to warning a jury about a witness who is capable of giving reliable evidence, but who may well choose not to do so. If the witness is mentally capable of giving reliable evidence, it is for the jury, with all the warnings from counsel and the court which the law requires, to decide whether or not, that witness, is giving reliable evidence."