R v Hendy (2006) EWCA Crim 819: Difference between revisions
(New page: ''The conviction for murder was quashed and replaced with diminished responsibility manslaughter because the judge's direction on the effect of alcohol reflected the law as then (erroneous...) |
No edit summary |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''The conviction for murder was quashed and replaced with diminished responsibility manslaughter because the judge's direction on the effect of alcohol reflected the law as then | ''The conviction for murder was quashed and replaced with diminished responsibility manslaughter because the judge's direction on the effect of alcohol (which reflected the law as then erroneously understood) was wrong in light of a later House of Lords case; obiter, fresh medical evidence relating to the diagnosis of personality disorder might reasonably have affected the decision of the jury. A retrial was not appropriate as tariff had been served; a restricted hospital order would be substituted for the life sentence.'' | ||
==Note== | ==Note== | ||
The House of Lords case referred to is [[R v Dietschmann (2003) UKHL 10]] | The House of Lords case referred to is [[R v Dietschmann (2003) UKHL 10]] | ||
==Other== | ==Other== | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
==External link== | ==External link== | ||
[ | {{#bailii:[2006] EWCA Crim 819}} | ||
[[Category:Brief summary]] | [[Category:Brief summary]] | ||
[[Category:Transcript]] | [[Category:Transcript]] | ||
[[Category:2006 cases]] | [[Category:2006 cases]] | ||
[[Category:Sentence appeal cases]] | |||
[[Category:Diminished responsibility cases]] | |||
Latest revision as of 19:21, 25 April 2021
The conviction for murder was quashed and replaced with diminished responsibility manslaughter because the judge's direction on the effect of alcohol (which reflected the law as then erroneously understood) was wrong in light of a later House of Lords case; obiter, fresh medical evidence relating to the diagnosis of personality disorder might reasonably have affected the decision of the jury. A retrial was not appropriate as tariff had been served; a restricted hospital order would be substituted for the life sentence.
Note
The House of Lords case referred to is R v Dietschmann [2003] UKHL 10
Other
Hearing date: 23 March 2006
Before: Gage LJ, Forbes J, Dame Heather Steel
Ian Pringle QC and Christopher Quinlan for the Crown
Peter Thornton QC and Paul Taylor for Hendy