R v Turner
Psychiatric evidence about how an ordinary person without mental illness would be likely to react to the stress of events is inadmissible, because it concerns matters within the jury's own experience.
Facts
Mr Turner was charged with the murder of his girlfriend, whom he had killed with a hammer. His defence was provocation, based on her telling him that she had been sleeping with other men and that the child she was carrying was not his. He wished to call a psychiatrist to give evidence that he had a deep emotional relationship with her, which made him likely to have been provoked by her confession, and that he was not suffering from any mental illness. The judge refused to admit the evidence.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal upheld the judge's decision. Lawton LJ said that an expert's opinion is admissible to furnish the court with scientific information which is likely to be outside the experience and knowledge of a judge or jury, but that if, on the proven facts, a judge or jury can form their own conclusions without help, then the opinion of an expert is unnecessary. Jurors do not need psychiatrists to tell them how ordinary folk who are not suffering from any mental illness are likely to react to the stresses and strains of life. The evidence was therefore inadmissible.
Related cases on witnesses, identification and expert evidence
- Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13, [2011] 2 AC 398
- Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP [2016] UKSC 6, [2016] 1 WLR 597
- R v Barker [2010] EWCA Crim 4
- R v Cannings [2004] EWCA Crim 1
- R v Clark (Sally) [2003] EWCA Crim 1020
- R v Dallagher [2002] EWCA Crim 1903
- R v Davis [2008] UKHL 36, [2008] 1 AC 1128
- R v Forbes [2001] 1 AC 473
Studying evidence? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
