Regina v Khan: CACD 27 Jul 2009

On his trial for murder the defendant produced unchallenged expert evidence that at the time of the offence, his mental responsibility for the killing was substantially impaired by his mental illness. He said that in these circumstances the charge of murder should have been withdrawing leaving only manslaughter available to the jury.
Held: The medical evidence was not the sole determinant. There was other evidence that the defendant had acted intentionally, and the jury was correctly allowed to consider it. The appeal failed.

Aikens LJ, Holman, Bevan JJ
[2009] EWCA Crim 1569, [2010] 1 Cr App R 4
Homicide Act 1957 2(1)
England and Wales
CitedRegina v Matheson CCA 1958
The defendant raised a defence of dimished responsibility under the 1957 Act to a charge of murder. Three doctors called for the defence at the trial had stated that the defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mind due to arrested or retarded . .
CitedRegina v Byrne CCA 1960
The defendant was a sexual psychopath who had strangled and mutilated a young woman resident of the YWCA. The case on his behalf was that he was unable to resist his impulse to gross and sadistic sexual violence. The judge’s directions had amounted . .
CitedRegina v Lloyd CCA 1967
The defendant had killed his wife. There was evidence that from time to time he had suffered recurrent episodes of reactive depression. Two psychiatrists gave evidence that this was a mental abnormality which to some extent impaired his mental . .
CitedRegina v Bailey CCA 1-Oct-1961
. .
CitedWalton v The Queen PC 1978
The defendant shot someone in a car. His defence was diminished responsibility, but the jury found him guilty of murder. He was sentenced to death. The Barbadian statute used precisely the same wording as the English Act of 1957. There had been . .
CitedRegina v Eifinger CACD 2001
The defendant had killed a publican, for whom he had worked and who was a friend. The defence of diminished responsibility was rejected by the jury and he was convicted of murder. On appeal there was no complaint about the terms of the summing up, . .
CitedRegina v Dietschmann HL 27-Feb-2003
Voluntary drunkenness No Diminished Responsibility
The defendant had been convicted of murder. At the time of the assault, he was both intoxicated to the point of losing his inhibitions and was also suffering an abnormality of mind sufficient substantially to reduce his mental responsibility.
CitedWood, Regina v (No 1) CACD 20-Jun-2008
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that he suffered from alcohol dependency syndrome, and that this amounted to a diminished responsibility.
Held: The appeal succeeded and and a conviction for manslaughter was . .
CitedElvan Rose v The Queen PC 1961
Lord Tucker said: ‘A man may know what he is doing and intend to do it and yet suffer from such abnormality of mind as substantially impairs his mental responsibility’. . .
CitedRegina v Brown (Davina) CACD 1-May-2001
A judge had a continuing duty during a trial to keep in mind the possibility of directing an acquittal. He must take care not to usurp the jury’s function. Nevertheless that jurisdiction should be exercised only sparingly, and only where he was . .
CitedRegina v Galbraith CCA 1981
Rejection of Submission of No Case to Answer
The defendant had faced a charge of affray. The court having rejected his submission of having no case to answer, he had made an exculpatory statement from the dock. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘How then . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.365624