View source for R v Coley (2013) EWCA Crim 223, (2013) MHLO 23

"We have heard these three cases in succession because they have some features in common. Each raises a (different) question connected with the interplay between the law relating to voluntary intoxication and the law relating to insanity or (non-insane) automatism. Each calls, however, for consideration of its very particular facts. Neither individually nor collectively do they provide an occasion for any wide-ranging general statement of the law of insanity, still less of loss of capacity generally. We know that this area of the law is under active consideration by the Law Commission, which work will, we think, be of value. Although there have historically been very few cases which raise insanity, that has been because the statutory provisions governing the disposal orders which must be made if there is a verdict of insanity have historically inhibited attempts to rely on it. More recent changes in those disposal provisions may well lead to an increase in numbers. Any review must, critically, address both the law of loss of capacity and the means of disposal in such cases, so as to pay proper regard both to the interests of the individual defendant and to the public risk which he represents."

==Citations==
R v McGee, R v Harris, R v Coley [2013] EWCA Crim 223

==External link==
{{#bailii:(2013) EWCA Crim 223}}

[[Category:Unfitness and insanity cases‎]]
[[Category:No summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2013 cases]]