R v Marvin Samuels
[2023] EWCA Crim 1103
R v Victor Mazzer
17 April 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 557
Court of Appeal
Vitor Mazzer was convicted of stabbing people after a party. He claimed self-defense and said he had PTSD, but the court didn't think his new evidence about PTSD would change the jury's decision. His appeal was rejected because the evidence wasn't strong enough to show his conviction was wrong.
Key Facts
- •Vitor Mazzer (applicant) convicted of two counts of causing grievous bodily harm with intent (s.18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861).
- •Incident occurred after a New Year's Eve party where a fight broke out.
- •Applicant claimed self-defence, stating he was attacked by a group of boys.
- •Prosecution relied on witness testimony and forensic evidence linking the applicant to the stabbings.
- •Applicant sought to introduce fresh psychological evidence of PTSD, arguing it impacted his actions and perception of threat.
- •Trial counsel did not present psychological evidence at trial.
Legal Principles
Admissibility of fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.
R v Press and Thompson [2013] EWCA Crim 1849; R v B (MA) [2013] 1 Cr App R 36; R v BRM [2022] EWCA Crim 385; R v Jacobs [2024] 4 WLR 8; Criminal Practice Direction 2023, paragraph 7.1.1; Criminal Procedure Rules 19.4(h)
Relevance of PTSD to self-defence; assessment of whether the defendant genuinely believed they were under attack and whether the force used was reasonable.
R v Press and Thompson [2013] EWCA Crim 1849
Expert reports must be reliable, tethered to the evidence, and explain how the expert opinion relates to the defendant's and witnesses' accounts.
R v BRM [2022] EWCA Crim 385; R v Jacobs [2024] 4 WLR 8
Outcomes
Application for extension of time to appeal against conviction refused.
Fresh evidence (PTSD report) not sufficiently tethered to the trial evidence; even if presented, it wouldn't undermine the safety of the convictions. The judge's failure to direct the jury on defence of another did not arise on the evidence.
Application to adduce fresh evidence refused.
Professor Farrell's report lacked sufficient connection to the applicant's trial testimony and other evidence; the applicant's defence wasn't based on miscalculation of threat due to PTSD.