CORRIGENDA

Date01 April 1953
Published date01 April 1953
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1953.tb02119.x
S18
TEE
YODEaN
LAW
REVIEW
VOL
16
new law places a premium
on
testate
succession,
and arguments
aa
to
its
provisions, rejected in the debates
on
the Bill, may
stiU
prove
an
incentive to will-making.
J.
D.
B.
MITCHELL.
COBBIGENDA
IN
the January number of the
M.L.R.
a note was published
on
the
Stmtfen Case
in
which the following passage from the report in
The Times
newspaper of the learned judge’s summing up
to
the jury
was given:
If
they (the jury) were satisfied that it was Straffen’s hand
that brought life to an end, then their verdict would
be
one of
guilty of murder. The jury should then
go
on,
if
that was their
conclusion, to ask themselves whether they were satisfied by the
defence that at the time Straffen was insane within the meaning
of the criminal law.”
“Such language could give only
one
impression
to
the
jury-that the burden
on
the defence was as heavy as that
on
the prosecution.”
Reference to the transcript of the summing up however shows that
the report in
The Times
was
incomplete, in that
it
did not give the
bllowing important passage
:
If
you
are
satisfied that the prisoner killed Linda Bowyer,
and only if you are satisfied of that, the second issue in this case
then calls for your consideretion.
You
have been asked that
if
you should be satisfied that it was this man who killed that
little girl, you should bring in a special verdict founded upon
the alleged insanity of the prisoner at the time. Here
I
have
to
tell
you
that the burden, or the
onus,
is upon the defence;
that burden would
be
discharged’
if
they satisfied you that he
waa
insane, and be discharged
if
they satisfied you
that
he
probably was insane; for where the burden rests upon the
defence, the law says that that burden is not
so
heavy as
it
is
when the burden rests
upon
the prosecution.
If
the defence han
satisfied you that
he
probably was insane at the time, why then
your verdict will be one
of
a special verdict which
I
will explain
to
you in a moment.
It
is generally put into three words:
guilty but insane.’ But observe, and indeed
I
say this in
all
seriousness, that
in
each case the word is insane.’
You
must
not leave out of your consideration when you are coming to deal
with this side of this cam that important word.”
It
will be observed that the’learned judge did in fact make it clear
to the
jury
that the burden
on
the defence is not as heavy as that
on
the prosecution. We wish
to
express our profound regret that this
unfounded criticism should have appeared in the
Review.
and was criticised (at p.
75)
in the following terms
:
*
We. also wish to express regret for an error that appeared in the
same number at the end of the review of Raphael Powell’s
Law
of
Agency.
The date of publication
of
this book was in fact printed
on
the
reverse of the title-page.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT