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 defined by the M’Naghton rules. He had been advised that he might have a defence to the murder charge as such, but had instructed his defence team not to advance it.
Held: It is for the defence to establish, if pleaded, a defence of diminished responsibility. ‘There have been a number of cases in which this court has been faced by the difficulties which arise when a defendant chooses not to call evidence at trial and then wishes to call that evidence on appeal. In general applications to that effect are rejected on the basis that a defendant must put forward his whole case at trial and that it is not in the interests of justice to permit him to put forward his case with different evidence before different tribunals. If in a particular case that results in a conviction which he could have avoided by leading the appropriate evidence at the appropriate time then that is the price he must pay for having chosen not to lead that evidence at the appropriate time. ‘ The Court has the power to substitute a conviction for manslaughter for one of murder, where the defendant’s own mental condition had led him to gainsay counsel’s advice, and to refuse to allow a plea of diminished responsibility to be put forward.
Citations:
Gazette 21-Apr-1999, [1999] EWCA Crim 453
Statutes:
Homicide Act 1957 2, Criminal Appeal Act 1968 23
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 – Regina v Melville CACD 1976
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Straw CACD 1-Jun-1987
It was common ground between the psychiatric experts that, at the time when the applicant killed her husband, her responsibility was materially diminished. The prosecution were prepared to accept a plea of guilty to manslaughter on this ground. The . .
Cited – Regina v Jones (Steven Martin) CACD 23-Jul-1996
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder wishing to bring in evidence of his diminished responsibility at the time of the offence.
Held: The evidence was admitted, but the conviction was upheld. The court took the opportunity to give . .
Cited by:
Cited – 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 . .
Main Appeal – Regina v Weekes CACD 4-May-1999
The defendant’s appeal against murder had succeeded, and a conviction for manslaughter substituted. The court now asked what should be his sentence.
Held: The medical evidence showed that he suffered a mental illness and it is of a nature and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Crime
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.156853