Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

Psychological Vulnerability 475
marshalled in the case of R. v. Raghip & Others (unreported, 5 December 1991).
This expert evidence would clearly have been admissible on those issues.
Mrs Tunstall and I were thoroughly cross-examined on our evidence. I explained
to the Court that outward appearance can be misleading and even
doctors are not always able to identify intellectual deficits without formal testing.
The judges accepted our evidence. In rebuttal the Crown had called their
own clinical psychologist, who had not actually assessed Ali himself, but had
commented in detail on my report.
The judges reviewed the fresh psychological evidence in terms of the three
categories set out in Stafford v DPP ([1974] AC 878 at 907). These are the
following.
1. This fresh evidence puts such an entirely new complexion on the case that
we are sure that a verdict of guilty would not be safe. So we will quash the
conviction and not order a new trial.
2. The fresh evidence though relevant and credible adds so little to the weight of
the defence case as compared with the weight of the prosecution’s case that a
doubt induced by the fresh evidence would not be a reasonable doubt. So, we
would leave the conviction standing.
3. We do not feel at this stage sure one way or the other. If this fresh evidence
was given together with the original evidence and any further evidence which
the Crown might adduce then it may be the jury—or we, if we constituted the
jury—would return a verdict of guilty but on the other hand it might properly
acquit. So we will order a re-trial.
The judges were of the view that Ali’s case fell into this third category. They
quashed the conviction and ordered a fresh indictment for a retrial. Six weeks
later Mr Ali appeared at Cardiff Crown Court and pleaded guilty to manslaughter.
A sentence of six years imprisonment was imposed. The nature of the plea
was based on certain terms, including it being accepted that Ali suffered from a
significant intellectual impairment, that the account given of his involvement
by a witness who was present during the murder was accurate, and that the
death of the woman might have remained a mystery if he had not come forward.
This was accepted by the court and resulted in Ali being immediately released
from prison after his guilty plea.
Comments
This is the only case discussed in this chapter where judges ordered a re-trial.
There was no dispute that Mr Ali had been at the crime scene. The question was
the extent of his involvement and whether he had been coerced to participate
in the incident, which was no doubt instigated by his co-accused. Ali went voluntarily
to the police after a Crimewatch programme revealing the discovery
of the body, eight years after the murder. His downfall was that he was in the
habit of lying as a way out of trouble, which had serious repercussions, when he
was initially interviewed as a witness by the police. His tendency towards lying
must have been apparent to the jury and undoubtedly made his testimony less
credible, even if it were true.