The defendant sought judicial review of the decision not to refer her case back to the court of appeal. She had been convicted of the murder of her hsuband’s new partner. She said it had been her husband.
Held: The court set out the approach to be taken when a defendant raises the defence of diminished resonsibility for the first time on appeal.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill summarised the protection given by the 1968 Act: ‘It is essential to the health and proper functioning of a modern democracy that the citizen accused of crime should be fairly tried and adequately protected against the risk and consequences of wrongful conviction. To this end, police operations to investigate crime and interrogate suspects are closely controlled by statutes, codes and rules; the conduct of prosecutions is entrusted to an independent, professional prosecuting authority; and legal aid is made available to fund all but the very well-to-do to defend themselves in serious cases. The main protection of the citizen accused of serious crime is, however, to be found in our system of trial by judge and jury. This system is so familiar as to require no description. But we draw attention to two characteristic features of jury trial germane to this application. First, the procedure is adversarial. There is no duty on the trial judge, as in an inquisitorial proceeding, to investigate what defences might, if pursued, be open to a defendant, nor to interrogate or call witnesses. It is the function of the judge to direct the jury on the relevant law and to summarise (perhaps very briefly) the evidence, and to define the issues raised by the prosecution and the defence, including any possible defence disclosed by the evidence even if not relied on by the defendant. The judge need not, and should not, go further. Secondly, the decision on the defendant’s guilt is made following a trial, continuous from day to day, by a jury assembled only for that trial, with no responsibility for the proceedings before the trial begins or after it ends. Thus the decision-making tribunal must reach its decision on the argument and evidence deployed before it at a final, once-for-all, trial. A defendant may quite properly put forward defences cumulatively and alternatively at a single trial, but not serially at different trials.’
Judges:
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Ognall J
Citations:
[1999] EWHC Admin 452, [2000] 1 Cr App R 141
Links:
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – Erskine, Regina v; Regina v Williams CACD 14-Jul-2009
The defendants had been separately convicted of murder several years ago. They sought the quashing of the convictions and substitution of convictions for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
Held: The appeal of Erskine . .
Cited – Nunn v Suffolk Constabulary and Another Admn 4-May-2012
The claimant had been convicted of murder and his appeal had failed. He now sought disclosure of the forensic material held by the police to his own legal team.
Held: Permission to apply for review was granted, but the claim failed. ‘It is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139716