Fresh evidence presented by a man of previous good character, who for no apparent reason killed his cousin with whom he had a close platonic relationship, raised a credible defence of diminished responsibility based on borderline personality disorder and alcohol- and drug-induced psychosis that should have been raised at trial. The case was remitted to the Court of Appeal.
ABNORMALITY OF MIND
A conviction for murder was unsafe where the judge, wrongly directing the jury on the issue of an intoxicated offender raising the defence of diminished responsibility, had departed from the authority of Dietschmann (2003) UKHL 10, (2003) Crim LR 550.
Fresh evidence to establish that the offender had a viable defence of diminished responsibility at trial was not admissible as the criteria under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 s.23(2) had not been satisfied; in particular there was no reasonable explanation for failing to adduce the evidence at the trial.
The defendant’s appeal against her conviction for murder failed as the substance of the material on which fresh medical evidence was based was known at trial and the defendant had a full opportunity to put forward her defence at trial.
Relief from forfeiture under the Forfeiture Act 1982 was not granted to a beneficiary who had been convicted of the manslaughter of the deceased where, having regard to the conduct of the claimant and all other material circumstances, the justice of the case did not require it.