R v Evaldas Smilginis

Expert evidence must be assessed by reference to the real issues in the case. Evidence directed to a hypothetical account which no party advances has little or no relevance. Autism evidence concerning trustfulness, difficulty seeing the wider picture or vulnerability to exploitation could not assist where the defence was that the defendant had no knowledge of, or involvement in, the offences. Where proposed evidence is at most marginally relevant and its late admission would create substantial difficulties in a joint trial, the trial judge may properly refuse an adjournment. The appellate court may also consider whether the conviction remains safe. A strong prosecution case and the absence of any realistic possibility that the proposed evidence would have affected the verdict supported dismissal of the appeal.

Evaldas Smilginis was convicted at the Crown Court at Stoke on Trent of six offences arising from the kidnapping and assaults of two men. During the appellant’s evidence, his solicitor raised concerns that he was autistic. An expert report was subsequently prepared, expressing opinions about autism, trustfulness, difficulty seeing the wider picture and vulnerability to exploitation.

After the evidence had been completed, the trial judge refused an adjournment to allow the expert evidence to be introduced and challenged by the prosecution. The appellant appealed against his convictions and applied under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to adduce the report as fresh evidence. The central issue was whether the proposed evidence was relevant and admissible, and whether refusal of the adjournment rendered the convictions unsafe.

Appeal dismissed.

1. The court proceeded on the assumption that the expert evidence would not have been excluded for any reason other than relevance. It also assumed, without deciding, that the defence could have adduced evidence that the appellant was autistic and might have been more trusting, less questioning, and vulnerable to exploitation. The precise admissible scope would have depended partly on any prosecution expert evidence.
2. Relevance and admissibility had to be assessed by identifying the real issues at trial. The appellant’s case was that he was unaware of the planned kidnappings and assaults, saw nothing, and played no part in them. It was not his case that he had been manipulated into participating, or that he had been told of the plan but naively failed to question or oppose it. The expert evidence could not be admitted merely because it might assist the appellant if the jury rejected his evidence and hypothesised a different account.
3. The evidence could not materially explain why a person who admitted intending kidnapping and violence would have brought potential witnesses to the scene merely to wait in a car, nor could it assist on whether the appellant had filmed the videos. Its relevance was therefore at best marginal.
4. The application was made only after the evidence had been completed. Admission would have created substantial difficulties in continuing the joint trial, including the need for responsive prosecution evidence. Severing the appellant’s case was unrealistic. In those circumstances the judge was clearly entitled, and correct, to refuse the adjournment.
5. The court also found that the convictions were safe in any event. The prosecution case was strong, the jury disbelieved the appellant, and there was no basis to think the verdict might have been different had the expert opinion been available.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appellant appealed against his convictions with leave of the single judge. The court dismissed the appeal: [2025] EWCA Crim 1261.
2. Crown Court at Stoke on Trent: The appellant was convicted after a joint trial of six offences arising from the kidnapping and assaults of two men.