Kamaladin Ismael was charged with a series of serious offences, including multiple robberies, over two indictments. He entered guilty pleas and was sentenced by Leicester Crown Court to a Youth Rehabilitation order on the basis of complex vulnerabilities and mental health needs.
Fosse law were not involved in that process, but were instructed on a new set of alleged offences. They were immediately concerned about Kamaladin Ismael’s ability to comprehend the charges, the proceedings in which he was engaged, and about his fitness to plead. They were concerned that these difficulties must have been manifest for some time, and therefore questioned the absence of enquiry into fitness in the earlier proceedings. Psychiatric reports were commissioned and enquiries made into what was known, or should have been known, about his capacity.
These enquiries made clear that Kamaladin was unfit to plead, and suggested that he would have been so throughout all relevant proceedings. However, as Lord Judge C.J made clear in R. v Erskine; R. v Williams [2009] 2 Cr. App. R. 29:
“it will be very rare indeed for a later reconstruction, even by distinguished psychiatrists who did not examine the appellant at the time of trial, to persuade the court that, notwithstanding the earlier trial process and the safeguards built into it, the appellant was unfit to plead”
Notwithstanding this difficulty, the evidence gathered by Fosse Law and Mr Maggs’ submissions led the Court of Appeal in Ismael to opine:
“This case should never have reached the point of sentence, still less this court.”
The convictions were overturned, and no retrial was ordered.
Case law : https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/crim/2024/301?query=ismael
