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 uncontradicted medical evidence that the defendant suffered from an abnormality of mind which substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts. It was said that this meant that the jury was bound to accept that the defence had been established and that the trial judge should so have directed the jury.
Held: Lord Keith of Kinkel referred to the case law and said: ‘These cases make it clear that upon an issue of diminished responsibility the jury are entitled and indeed bound to consider not only the medical evidence but the evidence upon the whole facts and circumstances of the case. These include the nature of the killing, the conduct of the defendant before, at the time and after it and any history of mental abnormality. It being recognised that the jury on occasion may properly refuse to accept medical evidence, it follows that they must be entitled to consider the quality and weight of that evidence’. The jury were entitled to regard the medical evidence as ‘not entirely convincing’. Furthermore, it had before it the evidence of the defendant’s conduct before, during and after the killing. He concluded that the jury was entitled to find that the defence of diminished responsibility had not been established, on a balance of probabilities.
Judges:
Lord Keith of Kinkel
Citations:
[1978] AC 788, (1978) 66 Cr App R 25
Jurisdiction:
Commonwealth
Citing:
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Bailey CCA 1-Oct-1961
. .
Cited by:
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.368590
