R v Victor Mazzer
[2024] EWCA Crim 557
R v Ashkan Salehi
17 October 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1466
Court of Appeal
A man with PTSD damaged some hospital equipment after a panic attack. He said it was an accident, but the court said the evidence showed he did it on purpose, even if he was having a panic attack. They didn't allow expert evidence about his PTSD to be used, because it didn't help prove whether it was an accident or not.
Key Facts
- •Ashkan Salehi, an Iranian national with PTSD and a history of torture and imprisonment in Iran, was granted asylum in the UK.
- •On November 11, 2020, Salehi was due for a knee operation, but it was postponed.
- •Salehi became agitated and upset, resulting in him touching a nurse, damaging a laptop, and knocking over a leaflet stand, injuring another nurse.
- •Salehi was charged with assaulting an emergency worker and two counts of criminal damage.
- •Salehi's defense was that his actions were accidental due to a panic attack stemming from his PTSD, triggered by the hospital situation.
- •The judge refused to admit expert psychiatric evidence supporting Salehi's claim of a panic attack.
- •The jury acquitted Salehi of assaulting the emergency worker but convicted him on the criminal damage charges.
Legal Principles
Evidence must be logically probative of a fact in issue.
R v T(AB) [2007] 1 Cr App R 4, paragraph 13
Juries shouldn't be burdened with evidence unless it's probative of an issue in the case.
R v BRM [2022] EWCA Crim 385, paragraph 26
For criminal damage, the prosecution must prove the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly.
Criminal Damage Act 1971, section 1
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The judge was correct to exclude expert evidence as it wasn't relevant to the key issue of intent. The judge's directions to the jury, while open to minor criticism, weren't legally wrong and didn't affect the safety of the convictions. The evidence against Salehi (body-worn camera footage) was strong.
Conviction for criminal damage upheld.
The prosecution only pursued the case on the basis of intentional damage. The judge's response to the jury's question about recklessness did not mislead them because it was not an issue in the case. The judge's directions correctly emphasized the need for proof of intentional damage and instructed the jury to acquit if the damage was accidental.
Refusal to admit expert psychiatric evidence upheld.
The expert evidence didn't address the key issue of whether Salehi acted intentionally or accidentally in causing the damage. The fact that Salehi gave evidence about his panic attack didn't automatically make expert evidence on that point admissible.