The defendant had been charged with two killings. The evidence depended on confessions he had made. He had, however, confessed also to twelve other killings, none of which the Crown believed he could have committed and at least some of which he certainly had not committed. There was medical evidence from both Crown and defence specialists which showed that he was mentally unstable. One of the defence specialists had invented a fictitious killing and the defendant had confessed to that also.
Held: His appeal was allowed.
Lord Taylor CJ said: ‘Applying the guidance given by this court in Galbraith we consider that where (1) the prosecution case depends wholly upon confessions (2) the defendant suffers from a significant degree of mental handicap and (3) the confessions are unconvincing to a point where a jury properly directed could not properly convict upon them, then the judge, assuming he has not excluded the confessions earlier, should withdraw the case from the jury . . We are therefore of opinion that when the three conditions tabulated above apply at any stage of the case, the judge should in the interests of justice take the initiative and withdraw the case from the jury.’
Citations:
(1993) 96 Cr App R 98
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – N Ltd and Another, Regina v CACD 10-Jun-2008
The defence had requested and been give a ruling of no case to answer. The prosecutor now appealed saying that this had been before he had closed the prosecution case, and had been not with his consent.
Held: The prosecutor’s appeal succeeded. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.652237
