The defendant appealed his conviction for murder saying that evidence later obtained suggested that he was suffering diminished responsibility at the time of the offence.
Held: The evidence was not admitted. It was not sufficiently strong to have supported the defence. The court quoted a previous judgment of Atkinson LJ: ‘It may well be that if subsequent evidence of diminished responsibility was really overwhelming, the Court might well feel moved to substitute a verdict of manslaughter, or to order a retrial.’
Citations:
(1976) 62 Cr App Rep 100
Statutes:
Criminal Appeal Act 1968 23, Homicide Act 1957 2
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Regina v Dodd CACD 10-Jun-1971
Medical evidence available at the time of the trial of the defendant for murder had been against diminished responsibility but there was said to be fresh evidence in favour of it now available for the appeal.
Held: ‘In the view of this Court, . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Weekes CACD 18-Feb-1999
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder saying that at the time of the offence he suffered a paranoid psychotic illness which would have substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts. He was not regarded as insane as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.241718