Nord Stream AG v Lloyd's Insurance Company SA & Anor Neutral Citation Number[2026] EWHC... Nord Stream AG v Lloyd's Insurance Company SA & Anor Neutral Citation Number[2026] EWHC...

Nord Stream AG v Lloyd's Insurance Company SA & Anor Neutral Citation Number[2026] EWHC...

The operator of the Nord Stream pipeline was suing insurance companies for damages caused to the pipelines by explosions which rendered them...
X and Y (Care Proceedings: Publication of Judgment: Criticism of Expert Witness), Re X and Y (Care Proceedings: Publication of Judgment: Criticism of Expert Witness), Re

X and Y (Care Proceedings: Publication of Judgment: Criticism of Expert Witness), Re

In her judgment on X and Y (Care Proceedings: Fact Finding: Death of a Child), the Judge was highly critical of the evidence and conduct during...
Expert Witnesses at a Turning Point Expert Witnesses at a Turning Point

Expert Witnesses at a Turning Point

This year’s Annual Conference discussed AI, independence, credibility, transparency and the changing expectations on expert witnesses.
Podcast Episode 28: Reflections on the EWI Conference 2026 Podcast Episode 28: Reflections on the EWI Conference 2026

Podcast Episode 28: Reflections on the EWI Conference 2026

This month on the Expert Matters Podcast, we take a look at the EWI Annual Conference which was held on 19 June. The Conference got off to a great...

Check out our Case Updates and Member Magazine

Looking for more news relevant to the Expert Witness community? Why not check out our database of cases relevant to Expert Evidence or the latest and previous editions of our member magazine, Expert Matters.

News

Clicking on one of the topics below will display news items relevant to that topic. You can also use the search bar below to identify news items.

Director of Public Prosecutions v Abdi [2022] IESC 24
Priya Vaidya 3152

Director of Public Prosecutions v Abdi [2022] IESC 24

by Priya Vaidya

The case: On 17 April 2001 the Respondent killed his infant son. At his trial in 2003 his defence was one of insanity. This was based on a diagnosis of schizophrenia. The prosecution’s psychiatrist did not accept that he was suffering from schizophrenia. He was convicted of murder on a majority verdict of 10:2. Following conviction he was admitted four times to the Central Mental Hospital, Dublin, and his discharge diagnosis following the last admission was paranoid schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder. He sought leave to appeal against his conviction on the basis that his diagnosis of schizophrenia was a newly discovered fact. Leave was granted and the psychiatrist who had given evidence for the prosecution at his original trial provided  a supplementary report in which the diagnosis was that there was “good evidence to support the defence view that the Defendant’s mental state had started to deteriorate some months prior to April 2001.” A retrial took place in December 2019 and he was found not guilty by reason of insanity. By judgment dated 2 September 2020, it was declared that there had been a miscarriage of justice. The Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. The DPP then appealed to the Supreme Court.    

 

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login

 

 

 

 

                                   

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.