View source for R v Antoine (2000) UKHL 20

"The issue which arises on this appeal is whether an accused person charged with murder is entitled to rely on the defence of diminished responsibility under section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, when he has been found by a jury to be unfit to plead by reason of mental disability, and a jury proceeds under section 4A(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (as substituted by section 2 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991) to determine whether he did the act charged against him as the offence."

==Related cases==

[[Antoine v UK 62960/00 (2003) ECHR 709]]

[[R v Antoine (2000) UKHL 20]]

* [[R v Antoine (1999) EWCA Crim 1170]] (Judgment)

* [[R v Antoine (1999) EWCA Crim 1171]] (Post-judgment discussion)

==Extract==
The point of law of general public importance certified for the opinion of this House is:

:"Where pursuant to section 4A(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 a jury has to determine whether an accused person has done the act of murder, is it open to the accused to rely on section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957?"

On the hearing of the appeal counsel for the appellant and for the Crown invited your Lordships to consider not only the certified question, but a wider question which was formulated by counsel:

:"Where, pursuant to section 4A(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, a jury has to determine whether an accused did the act or made the omission charged against him as the offence, must the jury be satisfied of more than the actus reus of the offence? Must the jury be satisfied of mens rea?"

The answer to both questions was "No".

==Resources==

{{#bailii:[2000] UKHL 20}}



[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2000 cases]]
[[Category:Unfitness and insanity cases]]