D was intoxicated and had adjustment disorder when kiling V. D said that he had also suffered from a pyschotic episode at the time, so he would have still killed. Jury told to question if he was sober he would have killed. HOH accepted appeal.
1 of 18
Hobson (1998)
D stabbed and killed ex-partner in an argument. Two psychiatrists said she had been the victim of Battered Woman Syndrome, which was not classed as a condition in 1992. COA ruled that a retrail was in order.
2 of 18
Gittens (1984)
D suffered from depression which he took pills for, and on a visit home from hospital, whilst drunk, he killed his wife and stepdaughter. Held that despite the drugs and alcohol, because of the illness, he would have still killed.
3 of 18
Seers (1984)
D stabbed his wife, but claimed DR on the grounds he had cronic reactive depression. Judge directed that for D to be successful, he had to be bodering on the insane. Held that this direction was wrong, as required abormality can cover depression.
4 of 18
Ahluwalia (1993)
D after being subject to 10 years of abuse, poured petrol on her sleeping husband and set him on fire. On the night of the killing, he had threatened to hit her if she did not provide him with money the next day. Appeal of DR was accepted.
5 of 18
Bailey (1961)
D battered and killed V with an iron bar. 3 medical experts said D was suffering from epilepsy and that this impaired his mental responsibility at the time. Jury rejected the defence but his appeal was accepted and the convitiction quashed.
6 of 18
Campbell (1991)
D killed a hitchiker. Raised defence of DR as he had PFC damage + epilepsy. Judge rejected defence as he could recall event and so had mental responsibility. Appeal was accepted as he also had seizures which meant he couldn't understand at the time.
7 of 18
Vinagre (1979)
D suffered from Othello Syndrome, a disease caused by his unfound suspicion that his wife was having an affair. His covicition of murder was reduced to manslaughter on the grounds that DR should only be accepted where there is 'clear evidence'.
8 of 18
Simcox (1964)
The imapiring of the defendant's mind does not need to be total, but must be more than trivial and that medical evidence should be provided to support the claims.
9 of 18
Bryne (1960)
D murdered a girl in a hostel and mutliated her body, claiming he did so because of irrestiable impulses which he was unable to control. Held that abnormality of mind means a state of mind a resonable man would term it abnormal.
10 of 18
Hendy (2006)
D killed a stranger after drinking, where he kicked a friend and tried to jump in front of a car, before being taken home. Found he was suffering from a personality disorder at the time, and judge's direction on alcohol was wrong. Appeal accepted.
11 of 18
Moyle (2008)
D was convicted of murder, but appeal on the grounds that the defence of DR was not run at the trial, depite strong evidence. The defence was not initally run because of his unwillingness to disclose medical problems. Appeal was accepted.
12 of 18
Erskine (2009)
D was convicted on 7 counts of murder. Fresh evidence showed that he had been suffering fro a lack of mental responsibility, and that in the first trail, he had been advised not to raise DR as a defence.
13 of 18
Din (1969)
D attacked and killed a man he thought was having an affair with his wife. After he stabbed him 7 times, he cut off his penis. Two medical experts supported this, and P was prepared to accept, but judge said it was up to the jury. Appeal not accepted
14 of 18
Lambert + Ali (2001)
D1 was convicted of a drug offence. D1 & D2 had been convited of murder & DR failed. In relation to the drug offences & DR, the burden of proof fell to D. This breached Article 6 of Human Rights Act 1998.
15 of 18
Sutcliffe (1981)
The 'Yourkshire Ripper' pleaded guilty to 13 counts of murder, despite a medical report that he was a paranoid schzophrenic. Judge decided it was for the jury to decide and as they reflect public interest and reaction. Found guilty of murder.
16 of 18
Eagan (1992)
D suffered a abormality of mind and killed an old lady whilst drunk. Followed guidance of Gittens: can D prove that had he not been drunk, he wouldn't have killed, and was he suffering DR at the time. Had drunk voluntarily and found guilty.
17 of 18
Tandy (1989)
D was an alcoholic who killed her daughter. Said that for a craving for a drink to be used as DR, there had to be grossly imparied judgement and emotional responses or the first drink of the day. She had not resisted the impluse and so found guilty.
18 of 18
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
D stabbed and killed ex-partner in an argument. Two psychiatrists said she had been the victim of Battered Woman Syndrome, which was not classed as a condition in 1992. COA ruled that a retrail was in order.
Back
Hobson (1998)
Card 3
Front
D suffered from depression which he took pills for, and on a visit home from hospital, whilst drunk, he killed his wife and stepdaughter. Held that despite the drugs and alcohol, because of the illness, he would have still killed.
Back
Card 4
Front
D stabbed his wife, but claimed DR on the grounds he had cronic reactive depression. Judge directed that for D to be successful, he had to be bodering on the insane. Held that this direction was wrong, as required abormality can cover depression.
Back
Card 5
Front
D after being subject to 10 years of abuse, poured petrol on her sleeping husband and set him on fire. On the night of the killing, he had threatened to hit her if she did not provide him with money the next day. Appeal of DR was accepted.
Comments
No comments have yet been made