Ibrahim, R.

Expert medical evidence may be admissible on the first limb of self-defence where a psychiatric condition is capable of establishing the state of affairs which the defendant genuinely believed existed. It is not relevant merely because a condition may cause impulsive conduct, an exaggerated response to threats, or reduced evaluation of circumstances.

Where the evidence does not assist the jury on the real issue, its exclusion is proper. The court may also take account of late service, the need for a prosecution expert, and the disproportionate disruption and cost of an adjournment.

The appellant was convicted at Isleworth Crown Court of causing grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He alleged that he punched the complainant in self-defence after being slapped and kicked.

At the start of the trial, the defence sought to call a psychiatrist who had not examined the appellant. The proposed evidence concerned Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and its possible effects on impulse control, perception of threats and evaluation of circumstances. The recorder excluded it as late, unsatisfactory and irrelevant. The appellant appealed against conviction on that ruling alone.

1. Appeal dismissed. The recorder did not err in excluding the proposed psychiatric evidence.

2. The principal factual issue was whether the appellant had struck the first blow. If he had been the sole aggressor, no question of self-defence arose and evidence about ADHD was irrelevant. The CCTV footage supported the prosecution case that the appellant was the aggressor.

3. The alternative suggested on appeal was that the complainant had first assaulted the appellant, who briefly retreated before returning and punching him. The court considered that this was unlikely to have been the basis of the jury’s verdict. In any event, the report provided only slight assistance. It did not support a genuine belief that it was necessary to return and knock the complainant down.

4. The court distinguished Seun Oye [2013] EWCA Crim 1725. Expert medical evidence may assist the first limb of self-defence where a psychiatric condition causes a defendant genuinely to believe in circumstances that did not exist. The appellant’s evidence did not raise that situation.

5. The report was also served late, contrary to the Criminal Procedure Rules. Admission would probably have required an adjournment for prosecution expert evidence, extending and restarting the trial at substantial public cost without useful purpose.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): appeal against conviction dismissed.
• Isleworth Crown Court: the appellant was convicted by a jury of causing grievous bodily harm and received 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months.