View source for R v Kurtz (2018) EWCA Crim 2743

{{Case
|Date=2018/12/10
|NCN=[2018] EWCA Crim 2743
|ICLR=[2018] WLR(D) 753
|Other citations=[2019] 2 WLR 1509
|Court=Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
|Judges=Macur, Julian Knowles, Wall
|Parties=Emma-Jane Kurtz
|Sentence=s44 and EPA
|Summary="The Registrar of Criminal Appeals has referred this application for permission to appeal against conviction and sentence to the Full Court. The application concerns the scope of the offence created by [[MCA 2005 s44|s 44]](2) read, in this case, with s 44(1)(b) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 ('MCA 2005) of which the Appellant was convicted. This provision has not previously been considered by the Court of Appeal. ... The essential question at the heart of this appeal is whether, on a prosecution for the offence contrary to s 44(2) read with s 44(1)(b), the prosecution must prove that the person said to have been wilfully neglected or ill-treated lacked capacity, or that the defendant reasonably believed that s/he lacked capacity. We shall refer to this as 'the lack of capacity requirement'. ... The submission by Ms Wade QC on behalf of the Appellant was that the existence of the [[EPA]] was not sufficient of itself to render the Appellant guilty of the offence contrary to s 44(1)(b) of the MCA 2005 even if she had wilfully neglected her mother. ... Despite our comments in [19] above as to the evidence which suggests that, at a minimum, the Appellant should reasonably have believed her mother to lack mental capacity in matters of personal welfare, the judge's failure to direct the jury in this regard is fatal to the safety of the conviction and the appeal must be allowed."
|Subject=EPA cases - revocation and suitability
|News=No
|RSS pubdate=2019/06/27 10:27:10 PM
}}