Lee Metcalf v R

Appeal dismissed. Fresh psychiatric evidence may be admitted where it is credible, could afford a ground of appeal, would have been admissible below, and there is a reasonable explanation for its earlier absence, applying section 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

Fitness for police interview depends on whether the suspect understood the interview, the questions and the significance of the answers, and could make a rational decision about responding. A person may be vulnerable despite subtle symptoms. Absence of an appropriate adult does not necessarily require exclusion where a fully briefed solicitor gives proper advice and intervenes effectively. An intermediary is not required merely because mental-health or cognitive difficulties exist. Psychiatric evidence must be relevant to an issue for the jury.

The appellant was convicted at Newcastle upon Tyne Crown Court on one count of rape and one count of false imprisonment arising from an encounter with C. He was sentenced to an extended determinate sentence under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

On appeal, the appellant relied on fresh expert psychiatric evidence concerning paranoid schizophrenia. He argued that he was unfit for police interview, that the interview should have been excluded because no appropriate adult was present, that he required an intermediary at trial, and that the jury should have heard evidence about his diagnosis. The central issues were whether the fresh evidence should be admitted and whether the convictions were unsafe.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

1. The court admitted Dr Kumar’s report, evidence and supporting medical records as fresh evidence under section 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The evidence was capable of belief, might afford a ground for allowing the appeal, would have been admissible below, and there was a reasonable explanation for its absence. The court also ordered production of medical records under section 23(1)(a).
2. Applying Annex G paragraph 3(a) of Code C, the appellant was fit to be interviewed. Although he had paranoid schizophrenia and displayed subtle symptoms, he understood the nature and purpose of the interview, understood the questions and significance of his answers, and rationally chose to give a full-comment interview.
3. The appellant was nevertheless a vulnerable person under Code C, so an appropriate adult should ordinarily have been present. However, in the particular circumstances, the absence of an appropriate adult did not require exclusion of the interview under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. His fully briefed solicitor gave proper advice and intervened appropriately throughout. The court applied the reasoning in R v Martin Lewis [1996] Crim LR 260.
4. Once the interview was properly admitted, the trial judge was entitled to give a direction under section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1934 concerning matters not mentioned in interview, provided the appellant’s explanations were fairly put before the jury.
5. The absence of an intermediary did not render the trial unfair. The court distinguished the circumstances in R v BRM [2022] EWCA Crim 385. The appellant gave clear evidence and was cross-examined fairly. The focus was the trial that actually took place, not a different trial which might have been conducted.
6. Psychiatric evidence is admissible only where relevant to an issue for the jury. Nothing in the transcript, summing-up or fresh evidence showed that the diagnosis was relevant to whether C consented or whether the appellant reasonably believed that she consented. There was therefore no basis to inform the jury of the diagnosis.
7. The convictions were safe. The interview contained no admissions, and the evidence against the appellant was overwhelming independently of any adverse inference from omissions in interview, including the unexplained discovery of C’s shoes outside his room. The appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against conviction dismissed. [2026] EWCA Crim 412.
• Newcastle upon Tyne Crown Court: On 31 March 2023, the appellant was convicted of rape and false imprisonment and sentenced to an extended determinate sentence. The judgment appealed citation was not stated.