Regina v Neaven: CACD 15 May 2006

The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. Unknown to himself and his advisors he suffered schizophrenia at the time of the offence.
Held: The court upheld the paramount and fundamental importance of the principles in favour of one trial but accepted that there may be cases, where, the evidence of mental illness and substantial impairment being clear, it may be in the interests of justice to admit it. Rix LJ said: ‘This is especially so if the potential vice of tactical decisions is met by undisputed evidence that such decisions were affected by the defendant’s illness itself.’


Rix, Mackay LJJ, Goddard QC J


[2006] EWCA Crim 955, [2006] 6 Archbold News 1




Criminal Appeal Act 1968 23


England and Wales


CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedRegina v Borthwick CACD 18-May-1998
Prior to the trial the appellant had been examined by a psychiatrist, but he refused to allow a more detailed examination to be undertaken and pleaded not guilty on the basis that he denied responsibility for the killing. He was convicted. Shortly . .

Cited by:

CitedLatus, Regina v CACD 19-Dec-2006
The defendant having been convicted of murder now wished to bring evidence of diminished responsibility to support an appeal for a substituted finding of manslaughter.
Held: The evidence should have been brought at the trial, and could not now . .
CitedMoyle v Regina CACD 18-Dec-2008
The defendant appealed from his conviction for murder. He said that he had not been fit to plead at the time of the trial. A medical report had said that whilst his responsibility was impaired, it had not been substantially so. The report warned of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241683