Upon the allegedly negligent release of the claimant from mental health care, she had, while in the midst of a serious psychotic episode, derived from the schizophrenia, killed her mother and been convicted of manslaughter. She now sought damages in negligence. The defendant relied upon a defence of illegality. Held: All the heads of claim … Continue reading Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust: CA 3 Aug 2018
Need for Certainty in Scope of Offence The appellant suffered a severe chronic illness and anticipated that she might want to go to Switzerland to commit suicide. She would need her husband to accompany her, and sought an order requiring the respondent to provide clear guidelines on the circumstances under which someone might be prosecuted … Continue reading Purdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions: HL 30 Jul 2009
The appellant appealed a conviction for manslaughter and his sentence. There was a history of conflict between the appellant and the victim, and both had met up carrying knives. Witnesses said the appellant was the attacker. He claimed the judge had given a misdirection as to self-defence. Held: An assertion as to a misdirection must … Continue reading Regina v Errol Garvey: CACD 30 Jan 2002
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He said that the judge should have left to the jury the issue of whether there had been provocation. Held: The appeal failed: ‘It is for the judge to decide if there is evidence of provoking conduct and loss of self-control. If there is sufficient evidence, it … Continue reading Miao, Regina v: CACD 17 Nov 2003
The appellant sought substitution of a conviction for manslaughter of her husband for that of his murder. She had long suffered violent treatment by him. She had not raised the issue of diminished responsibility at trial. Held: The court emphasised the need for any available relevant evidence to be advanced at trial. Defendants were not … Continue reading Regina v Ahluwalia: CACD 31 Jul 1992
Voluntary drunkenness No Diminished Responsibility The defendant had been convicted of murder. At the time of the assault, he was both intoxicated to the point of losing his inhibitions and was also suffering an abnormality of mind sufficient substantially to reduce his mental responsibility. Held: The correct approach was for the jury to ignore the … Continue reading Regina v Dietschmann: HL 27 Feb 2003
The couple had decided on a suicide pact. They made repeated attempts, resulting in his death. Property had been held in joint names. The deceased’s father asked the court to apply the 1982 Act to disentitle Miss Plant. Held: The appeal was allowed, and relief against forfeiture was given. Mummery LJ said: ‘the presence of … Continue reading Dunbar (As Administrator of Tony Dunbar Deceased) v Plant: CA 23 Jul 1997
Professional to use Skilled Persons Ordinary Care Negligence was alleged against a doctor. Held: McNair J directed the jury: ‘Where some special skill is exercised, the test for negligence is not the test of the man on the Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test is the standard of the … Continue reading Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee: QBD 1957
The appellant, having broken into a dwelling-house to commit burglary, came upon the occupier whom he struck in a way which according to the medical evidence could have been inflicted with a moderate degree of violence. The victim died as a result. . .
The defendant sought leave to appeal her conviction for murder saying that a finding of manslaughter was appropriate for her diminished responsibility.
Held: There was insufficient evidence to establish that the judge’s directions on the . .
The claimant had been found guilty of the manslaughter by diminished responsibility of the deceased. He now sought disapplication of the 1982 Act.
Held: The application failed: ‘The reforms introduced by the Homicide Act 1957 were designed to . .
A self induced addiction to glue sniffing is inconsistent with a reasonable man. Judge to say if a characteristic is consistent with the reasonable man test for the purposes of judging provocation. . .
The Court considered whether a borderline insanity was an impairment for the purposes of homicide. . .
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that he should have been only convicted of manslaughter, applying the new test for diminished responsibility as provided under the 1957 Act as amended, and particularly whether the . .
The court granted permission to appeal against a conviction for murder on grounds that related to the judge’s summing up in respect of provocation: ‘Although Holley is a decision of the Privy Council and Morgan Smith a decision of the House of . .
The appellant sought judicial review of the respondents refusal to refer his case back to the Court of Appeal.
Held: The Commission had misunderstood the way in which the Court of Appeal worked, by anticipating that it would reconsider the . .
The appellant sought to argue that despite having been found unfit to plead under the 1964 Act, it was still open to him to argue that the defence under section 2 of the 1957 Act applied, and that he was entitled to be plead diminished . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
The defendant was a glue sniffer. He had been taunted, and eventually attacked one of those villifying him. The judge excluded from the jury that the characteristics he suffered as a glue sniffer which might affect his response to provocation. Held: A verdict of manslaughter was substituted. For the test under section 3, the jury … Continue reading Regina v Morhall: HL 21 Jul 1995
Roch LJ said: ‘Trial judges are inevitably aware that the giving of a provocation direction must tend to undermine lines of defence such as those which were advanced on behalf of the appellant in this case. It is unlikely that a person who has lost control of himself is acting in defence of another. It … Continue reading Regina v Jones: CACD 22 Oct 1999
Section 3 of the 1957 Act spells out the function of the judge and jury at the trial. The section is dealing with the trial, not the appeal. Judges: Glidewell LJ Citations:  Crim LR 425 Statutes: Homicide Act 1957 3 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Considered – Regina v Whitfield CACD 1976 The court … Continue reading Regina v Burgess and McLean: CACD 1995
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. He had smothered his baby son with a cushion, trying to quieten his crying. He complained that the judge had not left to the jury his defence that he was subject to a loss of self control through the extreme tiredness of having to care for his wife … Continue reading Regina v Doughty: CACD 6 Apr 1978
Provocation is not an issue in murder until evidence is given which takes the issues beyond a mere refuted cross examination. If there was ‘insufficient material for a jury to find that it is a reasonable possibility that there was specific provoking conduct resulting in a loss of self-control, there is simply no issue of … Continue reading Regina v Acott: HL 12 Mar 1997
The defendant had sought to rely upon the defence of provocation. He had suffered serious clinical depression. Held: When directing a jury on the law of provocation, it was no longer appropriate to direct the jury to disregard any particular characteristics of the defendant when asking whether the provocation was such as to make a … Continue reading Regina v Smith (Morgan James): HL 27 Jul 2000
The defendant had been convicted of murder in 1972. He now appealed on a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission questioning the failure of the judge to direct on provocation. He had killed a girl after they tried but failed to have intercourse. Held: The defendant had failed to establish evidence to sufficient to … Continue reading Serrano, Regina v: CACD 1 Dec 2006
The defendants appealed their convictions for murder, saying that the court had not properly guided the jury on provocation. The court was faced with apparently conflicting decision of the House of Lords (Smith) and the Privy Council (Holley). Held: ‘The rule that this court must always follow a decision of the House of Lords and, … Continue reading James, Regina v; Regina v Karimi: CACD 25 Jan 2006
(Jersey) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder, claiming a misdirection on the law of provocation. A chronic alcoholic, he had admitted killing his girlfriend with an axe. Nine law lords convened to seek to reconcile conflicting decisions of the House as to provocation. Held: The defence of provocation has two ingredients. The first, subjective … Continue reading Her Majestys Attorney General for Jersey v Holley: PC 15 Jun 2005
The appellant was mother of the victim. He had suffered catastrophic injuries. She had tried to end his life in a ‘mercy killing’, but was discovered, charged with attempted murder, and released on bail. On a second occasion she injected him with a lethal dose of heroin. She now appealed against conviction saying her defence … Continue reading Inglis, Regina v: CACD 12 Nov 2010
The Judge must leave the issue of provocation to the jury if there is evidence to raise the issue, even if it had not been argued for by either prosecution or defendant. . .
To decide whether a judge’s duty under section 3 was triggered it was essential to bear in mind that the word ‘provocation’ was used in an active and not a passive sense. Provocation was that which provoked; it was not the state of being in a temper . .
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. The deceased had been supplying his sons with drugs. On the day in question he learned that the supplier had threatened violence against one son for buying drugs elsewhere. He was drunk. He went to . .
The defendant appealed from her conviction for the murder of her husband, saying that she had been subject to abuse over many years, and was subject to long term depression.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The court had not given proper weight . .
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder, saying that his defence of provocation should have been left for the jury.
Held: Not following Luc, it was open to admit relevant evidence on the defendant’s capacity for self-control. Having . .
The court considered the direction to be given as to the existence of provocation so as to reduce a charge of murder to one of manslaughter. The reasonable man in the definition should be one with the defendant’s mental condition. ‘The judge should . .
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He said that the court had not allowed his alcoholism as a characteristic for the purposes of testing the defence of provocation, and that the evidence of his long standing partner should be . .
A woman had killed her husband, but been convicted of manslaughter rather than murder on grounds of diminished responsibility. A hospital order was made under the Mental Health Act 1959. It was argued that in these circumstances the forfeiture rule should not apply. Held: The court rejected any attempt to limit the common law rule … Continue reading In re Giles Deceased: 1972
The rule against an offender benefitting from his crime applies not just in cases involving a conviction for murder. Held: The court rejected a suggestion that a distinction should be drawn between cases of murder and manslaughter. Lord Cozens-Hardy MR failed entirely to appreciate the supposed distinction: ‘it was a case of felony and I … Continue reading In the Estate of Julian Bernard Hall deceased; In re RH: CA 1914
Medical evidence available at the time of the trial of the defendant for murder had been against diminished responsibility but there was said to be fresh evidence in favour of it now available for the appeal. Held: ‘In the view of this Court, cases must be rare indeed when the defence have chosen to run … Continue reading Regina v Dodd: CACD 10 Jun 1971
The judge was bound to direct the jury that a defendant was fully entitled to sit back and see if the prosecution had proved its case, and that they must not make any assumption of guilt from the fact that he had not gone into the witness box. Diminished responsibility is not an issue to … Continue reading Regina v Bathurst: CACD 1968
The defendant was convicted of murder. He claimed diminished responsibility arising from a disorder, being either according to one psychiatrist, arising from alcohol dependence syndrome, or according to another, a depressed grief reaction. The substantial issue related to the judge’s directions on the alcohol dependence. The defendant did not suggest he had a craving: his … Continue reading Dietschmann v Regina: CACD 5 Oct 2001
Each defendant was charged under a statute which provided a defence if they could prove a certain element. They complained that this was a breach of their human rights. The complaint was rejected. It would be wrong to impose a burden of proof on a defendant as regards a main element of a crime, but … Continue reading Regina v Lambert; Regina v Ali; Regina v Jordan: CACD 14 Sep 2000
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that he suffered from alcohol dependency syndrome, and that this amounted to a diminished responsibility. Held: The appeal succeeded and and a conviction for manslaughter was substituted. Whether or not brain damage has occurred, a live issue of diminished responsibility may nonetheless fall to be determined … Continue reading Wood, Regina v (No 1): CACD 20 Jun 2008
Criminality of Assisting Suicide not Infringing The court was asked: ‘whether the present state of the law of England and Wales relating to assisting suicide infringes the European Convention on Human Rights, and whether the code published by the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to prosecutions of those who are alleged to have assisted a … Continue reading Nicklinson and Another, Regina (on The Application of): SC 25 Jun 2014
On his trial for murder the defendant produced unchallenged expert evidence that at the time of the offence, his mental responsibility for the killing was substantially impaired by his mental illness. He said that in these circumstances the charge of murder should have been withdrawing leaving only manslaughter available to the jury. Held: The medical … Continue reading Regina v Khan: CACD 27 Jul 2009
Two defendants appealed from convictions for murder saying that the offences had arisen from a loss of self control in situations where wives partners had committed adultery. The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Henriques , Gloster DBE  EWCA Crim 2,  3 WLR 515,  QB 1,  Crim LR 539,  … Continue reading Clinton, Regina v: CACD 17 Jan 2012
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, sayng that the jury had been wrongly directed as to the meaning of ‘substantial impairent when considering the alternative of manslaughter Elias, Sweeney, Gross LJJ  EWCA Crim 748,  Crim LR 744,  1 WLR 1030,  4 All ER 64,  2 Cr App R … Continue reading Golds, Regina v: CACD 2 May 2014
The court was asked whether the rule against forfeiture applied so as to disentitle an applicant from receiving a widow’s allowance when she had killed her husband with a knife. She had been held guilty of manslaughter but simply placed on probation. Held: The forfeiture rule does not apply universally to all cases involving a … Continue reading Regina v Chief National Insurance Commissioner Ex Parte Connor: QBD 1981
The defendant was convicted of murder. Evidence during the trial suggested a possibility of manslaughter, but neither the defence nor prosecution proposed the alternate verdict. The defendant now appealed saying that the judge had an independent duty to leave that option to the jury. Held: The appeal succeeded. The judge should have left a manslaughter … Continue reading Regina v Coutts: HL 19 Jul 2006
Forfeiture rule disapplied after spousal abuse The claimant sought the disapplication of the forfeiture rule. She had been convicted of the manslaughter of her seriously abusive husband. The court considered whether a conviction for murder set aside and replaced with one of manslaughter was a conviction under the 1982 Act, and that the three month … Continue reading Challen v Challen and Another: ChD 27 May 2020
The plaintiff suffered catastrophic brain damage as a result of cardiac arrest induced by respiratory failure as a child whilst at the defendant hospital. A doctor was summoned but failed to attend, and the child suffered cardiac arrest and brain damage. Held: In cases of diagnosis and treatment there are cases where, despite a body … Continue reading Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority: HL 24 Jul 1997
The defendant was a sexual psychopath who had strangled and mutilated a young woman resident of the YWCA. The case on his behalf was that he was unable to resist his impulse to gross and sadistic sexual violence. The judge’s directions had amounted . .
The issue of alcoholism in a murder case may be dealt with solely under diminished responsibility. A craving for alcohol would only give rise to an abnormality of mind for the purpose of section 2(1) of the Homicide Act if it was such that the . .
The wife who had been subjected to years of abuse shot her violent husband dead in the course of an argument, when a loaded shotgun she had picked up and pointed at him as a threat to deter him from offering her further violence went off . .
The deceased and the claimant lived together for about 10 years in an apparently stable and loving relationship. They had a son together. They also co-owned a house (by way of joint tenancy) in which they lived. In April 2013 the claimant was . .
A husband had accidentally shot and killed his wife’s lover after threatening him with a shotgun.
Held: The court confirmed the decision at first instance. He was not liable to be indemnified by his insurers for the losses claimed against him . .
The defendant had used a shotgun to threaten a man and the gun had accidentally gone off and killed him. The issue was whether the defendant could recover in respect of his liability under a policy of insurance. .
Held: The rule of public . .
Dr Crippen notoriously survived his wife. Between the date of his conviction for her murder and the carrying out of the death sentence passed on him, Dr Crippen made a will naming Ethel Le Neve as the sole executrix and universal beneficiary. Ethel . .
What a trial judge should do when the sole issue to be determined at trial is the partial defence of diminished responsibility provided by section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 (as amended) and there is unanimity amongst the psychiatric experts as to . .
The court considered the then conventional formulations employed in Scotland in relation to the level of impairment, which included (but were not confined to) references to the borderline of insanity . .
Where, on a charge of murder, a defendant asserted his unfitness to plead, it was not possible at the hearing into that suggestion and at the same time, to attempt to decide on a plea of diminished responsibility. If there were other factual . .
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder.
Held: The judge’s direction as to the effect of the defendant’s lies had been inadequate in relation to the issue of provocation.
Lord Taylor LCJ said: ‘(The judge’s) approach . .
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder saying that evidence later obtained suggested that he was suffering diminished responsibility at the time of the offence.
Held: The evidence was not admitted. It was not sufficiently strong to . .
The defendant raised a defence of dimished responsibility under the 1957 Act to a charge of murder. Three doctors called for the defence at the trial had stated that the defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mind due to arrested or retarded . .
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. At trial he had pleaded provocation, but not that he suffered abnormality of mind. Subsequent evidence of his state of mind led to this referral. The court now received fresh evidence to . .
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder saying that the defence of provocation had not been left to the jury. The trial judge had thought that there should be a provocation direction, but neither prosecuting nor defence counsel . .
Appeal against conviction of murder on a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission under section 69 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 on the basis that medical evidence now available indicates that he suffered from Asperger’s Syndrome which . .
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder saying that at the time of the offence he suffered a paranoid psychotic illness which would have substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts. He was not regarded as insane as . .
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that he should have been allowed to rely on a plea of diminished responsibility given the changes to section 2 of the 1957 Act introduced in 2009. He said that his alcoholism should . .
The defendant, then 22 had a history of disturbed childhood, sexual abuse and outpatient mental health treatment together with one instance when he was sectioned following a suicide attempt. On the undisputed psychiatric evidence he suffered from a . .
Lord Lane set out the directions to be given to a jury on the defence of diminished responsibility: ‘Where a defendant suffers from an abnormality of mind arising from arrested or retarded development or inherent causes or induced by disease or . .
The defendant had killed his wife. There was evidence that from time to time he had suffered recurrent episodes of reactive depression. Two psychiatrists gave evidence that this was a mental abnormality which to some extent impaired his mental . .
The defendant had planned and executed the killing of his wife’s lover, a cousin, having given him a home. He threatened that he would kill him, and prepared to do so, trying to get keys to gain access to the victim’s home, and when that failed . .
The court was asked: ‘Whether, for a craving for drink or drugs in itself to produce an abnormality of mind within the meaning of S. 2(1) of the Homicide Act 1957, the craving must be such as to render the accused’s use of drink or drugs involuntary . .
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that the judge should have directed the jury as to the impact of alcohol dependency syndrome on his plea of diminished responsibility where there had been no discernible brain damage. . .
The claimant psychiatrist allowed freedom within the insecure grounds of the hospital to a newly admitted but unexamined patient. He left and committed a homicide. She was suspended pending disciplinary proceedings by the Trust. An expert report . .
A wife had pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of her husband, though she had been subject to long term abuse by him.
Held: Relief was granted to the wife under s.2(2) of the 1982 Act. The forfeiture rule for suicide operates to sever any joint . .
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that he should have been allowed to rely on a plea of dimished responsibillity given the changes to section 2 of the 1957 Act introduced in 2009. He said that his alcoholism should . .