Karimi, Jamal

Jamal Karimi was convicted in July 1997 of murder and received a sentence of life imprisonment.

The CCRC received an application for review of the conviction in September 1998.

Mr Karimi had admitted to killing the victim. The principal question for the jury to consider at trial was whether the offence was murder or manslaughter (either by reason of diminished responsibility or provocation).

The defences of diminished responsibility and provocation were both raised on Mr Karimi’s behalf.

The trial took place before the House of Lords had ruled in the case of Morgan Smith that where provocation was raised as a defence to murder, the jury should be directed to consider whether there were any “personal characteristics” affecting the susceptibility of the defendant to react to provocative words or conduct.

Persons convicted pre-Morgan Smith were able to argue that since the jury had not been directed in these terms, their convictions were based upon wrong directions of law and, accordingly, unsafe.

The CCRC referred the conviction on this basis in June 2003.

During review, the CCRC had also obtained new expert psychiatric evidence indicating that Mr Karimi had been suffering from a psychological condition that had not been recognised at the time of his conviction.

The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction in February 2005 and ordered a retrial.