Metcalfe, R. v

An animation which merely illustrates an expert’s opinion is not independent scientific evidence and cannot add support to that opinion. It may assist the jury by making a complex account of movement intelligible.

Its admission under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act is not unfair merely because it is vivid or presents limited scenarios. Clear explanation of its illustrative character, directions on its limits, effective cross-examination and consideration of alternative scenarios can prevent the jury from giving it undue weight.

The applicant was convicted unanimously at Birmingham Crown Court of manslaughter, as an alternative to murder, following the death of his partner. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.

The central trial issue was whether the injuries resulted from a punch and a backwards fall, as the prosecution contended, or from an accidental fall associated with heavy drinking. A prosecution biomechanics expert used animations to illustrate her opinion and an alternative reconstruction advanced for the defence.

On a renewed application for leave to appeal, the sole issue was whether the trial judge should have excluded the animations as unfair and misleading under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

The renewed application for leave to appeal was refused.

1. The court held that the animations were no more than visual illustrations of Dr Bowley’s expert opinion. They were capable of assisting the jury to understand an account of complex bodily movement. They were not simulations or independent scientific evidence, and could not provide additional support for the opinion illustrated.

2. The applicant’s contention that the animation itself independently defied the laws of physics was rejected. The alleged defect was a challenge to the underlying expert opinion. If that opinion were erroneous, the corresponding illustration would be erroneous in the same respect.

3. The trial judge had made the animation’s limited role clear both when it was shown and in the summing-up. The jury were directed that the expert’s opinion could be right or wrong, that the animation added nothing to it, and that they could consider alternative scenarios. The defence had also fully cross-examined the expert on the criticisms of her analysis.

4. In those circumstances, the admission of the animations was well within the trial judge’s discretion under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. There was no arguable basis for concluding that the animations had a subliminal prejudicial effect or prevented the jury from focusing on the evidence and competing explanations.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction refused.
• Birmingham Crown Court: the applicant was convicted unanimously of manslaughter on 18 March 2015 and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.