News.

In Darren Osment v R [2026] EWCA Crim 1165, handed down on 15 September 2026, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) dismissed an appeal against a murder conviction. The victim was Claire Holland, who disappeared in Bristol in 2012 and whose body was never found. The prosecution case rested mainly on confessions made over several years, including to an undercover officer. The operation ran from December 2020 to July 2022 and involved more than 1,275 hours of interactions. The psychological evidence was extensive. The prosecution and defence clinical psychologists measured the appellant’s IQ at 82 and 79, agreed the difference was not significant, and both found him susceptible to “shift” under pressure but not to “yield” to leading questions. Two consultant forensic psychiatrists agreed he had no major mental illness, neurodevelopmental disorder or significant personality disorder, but did have alcohol dependency with associated depression and anxiety.

The defence also wanted to call Professor Gisli Gudjonsson, who devised the suggestibility test used in the case. He had not interviewed or tested the appellant or reviewed the undercover recordings. His report was based on the other experts’ reports, a defence skeleton argument and a summary of the undercover material. The Court endorsed the trial judge’s view that his evidence either repeated what the existing experts had covered or trespassed on the jury’s domain. Two academic psychologists were excluded from the trial for similar reasons. The judge was not persuaded that an academic who had never met the appellant could say anything the examining psychologist could not.

For those instructing psychologists in confession-reliability cases, the message is clear. Eminence in a field will not get evidence admitted. Courts want experts who have assessed the defendant or worked directly with the primary material, and who address the defendant’s specific vulnerabilities rather than the general risk of false confession.