The undiagnosed mental disorders that made her conviction unsafe

SALLY Challen’s quest for justice received a lifeline in March last year when she was granted leave to appeal her conviction.

Lawyers argued that changes in the law around ‘coercive and controlling behaviour’ – which became a crime in 2015 – could have led a jury to reach a different conclusion had the concept been fully explored at trial.

However, coercive and controlling behaviour is not a defence to murder.

Addressing the Court of Appeal yesterday, Lady Justice Hallett said: ‘This case has received a great deal of public attention.

‘There might be those out there who think this is appeal is all about coercive control but it’s not. Primarily, it’s about diagnosis of disorders that were undiagnosed at the time of the trial.’

Mrs Challen can, however, claim defences of ‘provocation’ and ‘diminished responsibility’. Her legal team have had to prove that at the time of the killing she had a previously undiagnosed mental disorder. One not identified during the original trial could amount to ‘fresh evidence’ in a defence of diminished responsibility.

Her barrister Clare Wade QC called on evidence from consultant psychiatrist Dr Gwen Adshead, who said that, in her opinion, Mrs Challen was suffering from a borderline personality disorder and had symptoms of a mood disorder in the years leading up to the killing. Dr Adshead told the court: ‘Where there is domestic violence, that can precipitate a mood disorder.’

The emergence of two mental disorders prompted the three Court of Appeal judges to rule the original conviction unsafe.

At her 2011 trial, Mrs Challen claimed diminished responsibility but Mrs Wade said ‘it was not put as fully as it could have been’.