Golds, R v
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE ELIAS
- MR JUSTICE SWEENEY
- MR JUSTICE GREEN
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves an appeal against a murder conviction where the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a 15-year minimum term. The appeal challenged the trial judge's rulings on the admission of bad character evidence, jury direction on 'substantial impairment' for diminished responsibility, and exclusion of psychiatric evidence regarding the appellant's mental state during the trial. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's decisions and emphasizing the applicable legal principles regarding diminished responsibility and the admissibility of evidence.
Judgment
Lord Justice Elias:
This is an appeal against conviction by leave of the single judge. The appellant was convicted of murder on 11 June 2013 in The Crown Court at Chelmsford before HHJ Ball QC and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 15 years. He had admitted killing his partner on15 July 2012. The only question for the jury was whether it was murder or manslaughter by reason of his diminished responsibility.
The circumstances in which the defence of diminished responsibility can be established are set out in section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957. This was amended by section 52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. It is now as follows:
“(1) A person (“D”) who kills or is a party to the killing of another is not to be convicted of murder if D was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which –”
(a) arose from a recognised medical condition,
(b) substantially impaired D’s ability to do one or more of the things mentioned in subsection (1A), and
(c) provides an explanation for D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.
(1A) Those things are –
to understand the nature of D’s conduct;
to form a rational judgment;
to exercise self-control.
(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1)(c), an abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for D’s conduct if it causes, or is a significant contributory factor in causing, D to carry out that conduct.]
(2) On a charge of murder, it shall be for the defence to prove that the person charged is by virtue of this section not liable to be convicted of murder.”
There were three expert medical witnesses each of whom believed that the conditions for establishing diminished responsibility were satisfied. Notwithstanding that, the jury rejected the defence. The appeal now is directed at certain rulings and directions of the judge which the appellant submits rendered the trial unfair and the conviction unsafe.
Originally there were six grounds of appeal. The single judge gave leave on two and the appellant sought to renew the application for leave on a further two. One of these, concerning the direction given as to the meaning of “substantially impaired” in section 2(1)(b) was resuscitated with the encouragement of the court. We gave both counsel the opportunity to make written submissions on it, which they did.
The background
The essential facts were as follows. The deceased, Claire Parish, and her partner, the appellant, went to a barbecue wh