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 responsibility. The judge had followed Egan in saying that the issue of diminished responsibility could not be raised at a hearing of fitness to plead.
Held: The two hearings were distinct. The defence of diminished responsibility could be heard only when the defendant faced a trial for murder. The 1964 procedure decided whether he should face that procedure. The defence of provocation to a charge of murder is only relevant when the jury are satisfied that the defendant had the requisite mens rea for murder.
Lord Nicholls Of Birkenhead Lord Mackay Of Clashfern Lord Nolan Lord Hope Of Craighead Lord Hutton
 2 Cr App R 94,  UKHL 20,  2 WLR 703
England and Wales
Doubted – Regina v Egan CACD 29-Jan-1999
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference No 3 of 1998 CACD 25-Mar-1999
Where a defendant had been insane at the time of a burglary but was fit at the time of trial a court examining his actions under the Act was required to look only to the actions and need not enquire as to the presence of any mental element. . .
Cited – Felstead v The King 1914
Cited – Regina v Sullivan HL 1984
The burden of establishing insanity in a criminal trial is on the defence on the balance of probabilities.
Lord Diplock said: ‘I agree with what was said by Devlin J. in Reg. v. Kemp (1957) 1 QB 399, 407, that ‘mind’ in the M’Naghten Rules is . .
Cited – McNaughten’s Case 1843
Appeal from – Regina v Antoine CACD 29-Apr-1999
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 . .
Applied – Regina v Heather Grant CACD 22-Nov-2001
The defendant was accused of murder. She had been found to be under a disability under the Act, but wanted to put forward a defence of provocation. Under Antoine, it was clear that matters of mens rea under the Act were not for the jury. The . .
Cited – George Moore v The State PC 29-Jan-2001
(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 . .
Cited – Regina v H (On appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) HL 30-Jan-2003
The defendant had been found unfit to stand trial, at a later hearing under the section, the jury had found that he had committed the act complained of. He was discharged but ordered to be placed on the sex offenders register. He appealed on the . .
Cited – Regina v KJ Martin CACD 20-Feb-2003
The defendant had been found unfit to plead on a charge of murder. Charges against the co-defendants were later reduced to inflicting grievous bodily harm, but when the defendant came to be dealt with, it was on the basis that the charge remained . .
Cited – Regina v Moore CACD 12-May-2003
The applicant had been convicted of contempt of court, but succeeded on appeal. Costs had been ordered in his favour, but the matter had been referred back to the court to consider the extent of its powers on such an occasion.
Held: The making . .
Cited – Norman, Regina v CACD 31-Jul-2008
The defendant suffered a degenerative disease affecting his mental capacity, and at trial the issue of his fitness to plead arose.
Held: Where the issue of unfitness arose it was necessary for the court to exercise very careful case management . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.159053