IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
The Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE PEPPERALL
MR JUSTICE GRIFFITHS
____________________
R E X | ||
- v - | ||
ZAKARIA LAHRAR |
____________________
Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr A Jackson appeared on behalf of the Crown
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
LADY JUSTICE SIMLER:
Introduction
The Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal: Conviction
The facts
The fresh evidence
15. The second report Dr Beck repeated and reinforced points made earlier. She concluded that the appellant had poor real-world adaptive functioning, which demonstrated that he was intellectually disabled. He had very poor processing speeds which would have impacted on his ability to understand what was happening at the time of the offence.
The Proposed Grounds of Appeal
Our Analysis and Conclusions
"... An expert's opinion is admissible to furnish the court with scientific information which is likely to be outside the experience and knowledge of a judge or jury. If on the proven facts a judge or jury can form their own conclusions without help then the opinion of an expert is unnecessary. …"
That approach was followed in subsequent cases, including R v Masih and R v Henry, to which we were referred. In Henry the court made clear that "An intention that someone should be killed is a visceral matter of no great complexity..." Such an intention extends from instinct, rather than intellect. In our judgment, the position has not arguably been altered by the Supreme Court's decision in R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8. The issue of intent is ordinarily the province of the jury. It is right that such evidence might be admissible, depending on the facts and issues in a particular case; but such cases will be rare.
"Can I just say this, please? This was a normal day. I didn't expect what was going to happen, which happened. I didn't have knowledge of Mr Boakye holding a machete. This was a normal day, just another day. I was going to collect weed, and that is it."
"Q. Well, why did you ignore this threatening man?
A. Can you say that again, please?
Q. Why did you ignore ---
A. I think – you're confusing me a bit. I'm not gonna lie to you.
Q. All right.
A. You're confusing me.
Q. I don't want to confuse you.
A. You're confusing me.
Q. Let's just go back."
This passage demonstrated the appellant's refusal to accept a suggestion put to him, his determination to ask for the question to be repeated, his ability to challenge the questioner when he did not understand, and to reject what was being suggested.
The Appeal against Sentence