(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed a conviction for murder. It was said the judge misdirected the jury on the defence of insanity, drawing a false distinction between medical and legal insanity. Though attempts had been made to cure the defect, it remained substantial and confusing. The judge also misdirected the jury as to the standard of diminished responsibility. Appeal allowed, and a conviction for manslaughter was substituted.
Judges:
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde, Lord Scott of Foscote, Sir Murray Stuart Smith
Citations:
[2001] UKPC 4
Links:
Citing:
Cited – McNaughten’s Case 1843
. .
Cited – Regina v Antoine HL 30-Mar-2000
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Commonwealth
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159444