The unlawful killing is not in dispute now, everybody, even Blackman accepts that. What is being appealed is the level of culpability based on the psychiatric examination of him, and the fact that an alternative verdict is available. He may well lose, and that will be that, but he hasn't made those medical reports up, they have been assembled by experts in their field, which now gives rise to the suggestion that whatever he did or said at the time, he wasn't functioning correctly.

Whether he knew or not may be irrelevant. What may be relevant is whether any recognised medical condition that he might have been suffering at the time caused him to lose self-control, as laid down by Section 52 of the Coroner's and Justice Act 2009

Persons suffering from diminished responsibility (England and Wales)

(1)In section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 (c. 11) (persons suffering from diminished responsibility), for subsection (1) substitute—

“(1)A person (“D”) who kills or is a party to the killing of another is not to be convicted of murder if D was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which—

(a)arose from a recognised medical condition,

(b)substantially impaired D's ability to do one or more of the things mentioned in subsection (1A), and

(c)provides an explanation for D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.

(1A)Those things are—

(a)to understand the nature of D's conduct;

(b)to form a rational judgment;

(c)to exercise self-control.

The evidence would suggest that he didn't lose any self control though. He had the calmness of mind to move the victim out of sight of the surveillance camera and was even able to utter "shuffle off this mortal coil" James-Bond-like as he shot an unarmed man dead.

He sounds more like a cold-blooded psychopath to me, rather than someone who temporarily lost his mind in the heat of battle.

If there had been, without any doubt, any mention of mental disorder and it would have been ridiculed. As this forum knows well when the same is suggested about any terrorist.
Psychiatrists aren't necessarily impartial or too hot on dealing with conscienceless people putting on their act which in this case, he'd had lots of time to rehearse and no doubt the right advice.

Well, that will be for the appeal court to decide based on the new evidence. A calm demeanour does not necessarily mean that the person's judgment or state of mind is not impaired.

So he's fooled not one, but two quite respected psychiatrists, or they are simply biased?

Mmkay.

Don't be fooled, it's very easily done.

Usually when you don't agree with their findings, eh?

Absolutely spot on.

Yeah, if Blackman wins his case, it sends out the message that anyone can come out with the same excuses about combat fatigue, stress etc.

Funny he did not look stressed to me, looked very calm and calculating he was also VERY AWARE of what he did was wrong, hence the 'this stays between us' etc. Thats were the crux of it is he was fully aware he was committing a crime, there is no diminished responsibility here and I bet a prosecutor could find 2 psychiatrists who would blow the supposed 'combat stress' out of the water.

How should a person suffering from combat stress look in your obviously qualified opinion?

The prosecution are at liberty to provide expert opinion to counter the findings of Blackman's psychiatric evaluation by the two experts.

No it doesn't. Each case will be judged on its own merit.

...and Blackman's hasn't got any....

The CCRC disagree with you mate.

I totally agree with this.

So his original defence was BS, aimed at getting an acquittal.


And this wasn't fully looked into prior to the trial, presented to the prosecution prior to trial for consideration or even brought up as mitigation? No, of course it wasn't and not because his defence were incompetent as his supporters now claim, but because it would have meant he'd have to have admitted that he did the deed.

I don't think there are too many police officers working in a war zone surrounded by an army of terrorists determined to kill them and us
I am glad that we have soldier like Sgt Blackman rather than the woolly liberal lefties who applaud his conviction

Then they are endorsing cold blooded, planned and pre meditated murder.

It will be a very sad day for British Justice if they get their way.

I don't know what his defence's strategy was at the time, especially as it would appear that the lesser charge wasn't an avenue open to them. Now it may be, as the examination of him has concluded he was in fact suffering from a recognised medical condition.

Don't be ridiculous, they don't "endorse" anything. They examine the case and any new evidence that passes the 'real possibility' test of a quashed conviction is referred back to the court of appeal. They believe his case has merit after their lengthy review of all the evidence even if you don't.

how easy would it be, after the fact, to lie about state of mind, after much research an a particular issue?

As with all criminal trials there is always bias depending on which side is paying for the report

I assume the prosecution were always at liberty to conduct their own psychiatric evaluation of Blackman.

It's not ridiculous at all. The net effect of an acquittal based on so called psychological evidence, will be endorsement of cold blooded murder. No matter how many ways you argue it, that will be the case.

One of the evaluations was done by someone appointed by the prosecution as an indepedant review and all three (the other two being employed by Blackman) were in agreement apparently.

- Don't make a sound.