Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
November 21, 2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
Judgment
Lord Justice Davis :
Introduction
On the night of 3 May 2013 the appellant, then aged 22, killed Paul Simons. He was charged with murder. The only issue at trial was the defence raised by the appellant of diminished responsibility. The evidence adduced in support of that defence was from a consultant forensic psychiatrist of acknowledged standing and expertise. Her opinion was firmly and entirely in support of the defence. That opinion was not controverted by any expert evidence adduced by the Crown, who called no expert evidence at all in this regard. The jury convicted of murder. The question is whether such conviction is to be regarded as safe.
This appeal, brought by leave of the single judge, thus throws up a problem of a kind which has been before the appeal court over the years on a number of different occasions. Those cases, however, were decided in the context of a defence of diminished responsibility under the former statutory provisions contained in s.2 of the Homicide Act 1957. The present case is, so far as the researches of counsel go, the first of this particular kind to come before the appellate court in the context of a defence of diminished responsibility under s.2 of the 1957 Act as amended by s.52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
At the conclusion of the hearing all three members of this court were of the view that the conviction for murder could not, in the particular circumstances of this case, stand and that a verdict of manslaughter should be substituted. The court so announced, giving directions as to the obtaining of further reports for the purposes of sentencing, which is to take place before this court in due course. It also said that it would provide its reasons in writing for its conclusion at a later date. These are those reasons.
The background facts
The appellant was born on 2 August 1990. He has had personality and mental health issues going back to his childhood. He was brought up by his mother as a single parent: he was to describe his relationship with her as a mother in the most positive of terms. He was, however, also to describe a childhood of no happiness and ongoing and repeated sexual abuse by another family member. At all events, the appellant had a history of mental and behavioural problems. He had great difficulties at school. He was small in stature and was bullied. He avoided large groups of people at school and preferred the company of girls. He frequently absconded both from home and fr
AI Generated Summary
The case concerns Mr Brennan’s killing of Paul Simons after planning and preparing a ritualized attack at his partner’s Chelmsford flat. Brennan had a documented history of mental illness, including Schizotypal Disorder and Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder, and longstanding obsessions with satanic and ritual themes. At trial before Judge Ball QC, the defence of diminished responsibility was solely supported by Dr Gillian Mezey’s uncontradicted expert evidence diagnosing recognized medical conditions that substantially impaired Brennan’s ability to form rational judgment and exercise self-control; the Crown called no expert and did not substantively challenge her conclusions. Despite this, the jury convicted of murder following directions suggesting they need not “buy into” the expert’s conclusions. On appeal, Lord Justice Davis, writing for a unanimous three-judge Court of Appeal, held the conviction unsafe, emphasizing the structured nature of amended s.2 and that uncontradicted expert psychiatric evidence cannot be rejected without rational reasons. The court substituted manslaughter and clarified when murder may be withdrawn from a jury.