The defendant had been convicted of manslaughter on an indictment for murder. The jury was directed under the new law to the effect that the reference to ‘substantially impaired’ required the jury to conclude that the impairment was more than minimal. The judge when sentencing said that notwithstanding the finding of diminished responsibility, the defendant’s responsibility for the killing was still substantial. The appellant contended that this was at odds with the jury’s finding. If the abnormality of mental functioning had substantially impaired his ability to understand what he was doing, then he could not at the same time be substantially responsible.
Held: The court gave its reasons for rejecting the appellants appeal against his conviction for manslaughter. The meaning of substantially impaired in the amended version of section 2 was the same as in the original version.
Judges:
Hooper LJ, Edwards-Stuart, Mettyear JJ
Citations:
[2011] EWCA Crim 2797
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Golds, Regina v CACD 2-May-2014
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 . .
Cited – Golds, Regina v SC 30-Nov-2016
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.449746