R v Yeervesh Lahoora

Expert evidence of PTSD may be relevant to self-defence where it bears on the threat perceived by the defendant or on whether the defendant honestly and instinctively believed that the force used was necessary. Admissibility depends on the issues and defence in the particular case. The evidence must connect the diagnosis and its effects to the defendant’s account, relevant evidence and the events in issue. General evidence is unlikely to assist. Where the defence denies awareness of a co-participant’s weapon or the level of force used, rather than asserting a genuine belief that that force was necessary, PTSD evidence may not assist the jury. A trial judge may therefore refuse an adjournment to obtain it, particularly where delay would affect another defendant, witnesses and the criminal justice system.

Following a trial at the Crown Court at Chelmsford, the applicant was convicted of wounding with intent under section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and violent disorder under section 2(1) of the Public Order Act 1986. His defence was self-defence. He said that, after an acid attack, an injured leg prevented him from running away and that he was unaware that companions had used a knife.

The trial judge refused an adjournment to obtain expert psychiatric evidence about PTSD. The applicant sought leave to appeal and permission to adduce a further report under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The central issues were whether the evidence could have been admitted and assisted the appeal, and whether it was sufficiently relevant to the defence advanced.

Disposition. The court refused both the application to adduce fresh evidence and the application for leave to appeal against conviction.

1. Under section 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the court accepted that the further report was capable of belief and assumed that there was a reasonable explanation for its lateness. Whether it would have been admissible at trial and whether it might afford a ground of appeal were inseparable from the correctness of the refusal to adjourn.
2. There may be cases in which PTSD evidence is relevant to the threat perceived by a defendant or to whether the defendant honestly and instinctively believed that the force used was necessary in self-defence. The court’s consideration of R v Press and Thompson [2013] EWCA Crim 1849 was consistent with that limited proposition. Relevance remains dependent on the issues and the defence actually advanced.
3. Applying the general principle identified in R v Mazzer [2024] EWCA Crim 557, expert evidence should be tethered to the defendant’s account, relevant witness evidence and the events in issue, with reasons for the opinions expressed. The further report was brief and general. It did not connect the PTSD diagnosis with particular features of the applicant’s conduct or account.
4. The applicant’s essential case was that he responded to the acid attack, could not run away because of his injured leg, and did not know what the other men were doing or that a knife was present or used. He did not contend that he genuinely believed that the use of a knife, or a three-to-one group attack, was necessary. The key issue was therefore the level of force to which he was party, not his belief in the necessity of that force. The PTSD evidence could not assist the jury on that issue.
5. The trial judge was entitled to assess the proposed evidence carefully, having regard to the timing of the application and its effect on the other defendant, the witnesses and the criminal justice system. The evidence concerning the co-defendant’s PTSD was materially different because it specifically linked the diagnosis to the perceived threat and the decision to initiate the violence. The judge was correct to refuse the adjournment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — [2026] EWCA Crim 150. Refused the applications to adduce fresh evidence and for leave to appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at Chelmsford — Following trial, the applicant was convicted on 14 March 2025 of wounding with intent and violent disorder.