Moyle v Regina: CACD 18 Dec 2008

The defendant appealed from his conviction for murder. He said that he had not been fit to plead at the time of the trial. A medical report had said that whilst his responsibility was impaired, it had not been substantially so. The report warned of the need to verify his ability to stand trial nearer the date, but no steps had been taken to do this.
Held: It was not the case that someone whose approach to a trial was severely affected by delusions was necessarily unfit to plead: ‘Each case, of course, depends on its own facts but delusions as to the court’s powers of sentence, or as to the objectivity of the court, or as to the evil influences which are thought to be present in the proceedings, do not necessarily require a finding that a person is unable to give instructions and to understand the proceedings.’ In this case the defence of diminished responsibility had not been withheld for any tactical reason, and the disease itself contributed to the decision. The appeal was allowed.

Pill LJ, Sweeney LJ, Sir Christopher Holland
[2008] EWCA Crim 3059
Mental Health Act 1983
England and Wales
CitedRegina v Padola 1959
Lord Parker CJ said: ‘In our judgment the direction given by Alderson B. is not intended to cover and does not cover a case where the prisoner can plead to the indictment and has the physical and mental capacity to know that he has the right of . .
CitedRegina v Robertson 1968
The court considered the definition of whether a defendant was fit to stand trial. The defendant had been found under a disability before arraignment, but now said that he should have been tried. There was medical evidence that his ‘delusional . .
CitedRegina v Berry CACD 1978
Although a person was highly abnormal, it did not mean that he was incapable of doing those things set out in Pritchard as the requirements to be fit to be tried. Lord Lane CJ set aside a finding that the defendant was unfit to stand trial, saying: . .
CitedJohn M, Regina v CACD 14-Nov-2003
The trial judge had directed the jury, determining fitness to plead, with an extended formulation of the test, including the appellant’s ability to give evidence, if he wished, in his own defence. This facility had been described to mean that ‘the . .
CitedLatus, Regina v CACD 19-Dec-2006
The defendant having been convicted of murder now wished to bring evidence of diminished responsibility to support an appeal for a substituted finding of manslaughter.
Held: The evidence should have been brought at the trial, and could not now . .
CitedRegina v Neaven CACD 15-May-2006
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. Unknown to himself and his advisors he suffered schizophrenia at the time of the offence.
Held: The court upheld the paramount and fundamental importance of the principles in favour of one . .
CitedRegina v Ahluwalia CACD 31-Jul-1992
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.278959