WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No 201903466/B2
NCN Number: [2021] EWCA Crim 729
Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate Thursday 11 March 2021
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Before
LORD JUSTICE BEANMRS JUSTICE WHIPPLE DBEMR JUSTICE CALVER
Between
REGINACrownV
Between
TANYA JAYNE BROOKES__________Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JSTel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)_________MR P JARVIS appeared for Applicant._________J U D G M E N T(Draft for Approval)
[1]length of time is now sought.[2]trial on that separate indictment. Other counts were left on the file.[3]2014 her appeal against sentence was allowed to a limited extent to reduce her sentence to 18 months. The Court on that occasion gave a full judgment, which is relevant in one way[4]to the matters before us today.[5]offences. The sole ground of appeal concerns an application for leave to adduce fresh evidence. That application is dated 21 August 2019 and proceeds under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. It is submitted that the fresh evidence is relevant to the issue of the applicant's dishonesty and it consists of the expert report of Professor Kopelman dated 23 July 2018 accompanied by his statement of 9 July 2019.[6]Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67.[7]appeal in this case and has filed a respondent's notice.[8]of them.[9]already. We would add these specific points.[10]sustained and had occurred during a time when the applicant held a senior position in the police force. That was of course a conclusion in relation to sentence but it has some[11]significance in relation to the matters raised in these applications. Secondly, the evidence offered by Professor Kopelman as to the nature and extent of the interference with brain functions as a result of the surgery seems to us to be similar in its essentials to that offered by Professor Neil Greenberg many years before. In our judgment, there is broad agreement that the applicant underwent, or might have undergone, a changed personality as a result of the surgery and that she may have had a confused understanding of right and wrong as a result. Before us this morning Mr Jarvis has submitted that there is a material difference in this respect between the first and the second reports of Professor Greenberg, noting that it was only the first Greenberg report that was in the possession of the defence team prior to trial. We cannot accept that submission. In our judgment the Greenberg reports (both first and second reports) focus on personality aspects which may have been important in understanding the applicant's views about right and wrong. That the origin of those personality aspects or defects may variously have been put as mental health reasons (in the first report) and as organic damage (in the second report). But that differing explanation for the cause of the personality changes is not material. The central point that Professor Greenberg is striving to make is that the surgery may well have impacted on the applicant’s personality and functioning.[12]dishonest actions.[13]under consideration at trial. It is not a matter which has arisen since.[14]such evidence may have served to undermine rather than assist her defence.[15]for themselves.[16]admission of fresh evidence and for permission to appeal.[17]proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk