Diminished Responsibility and Unanimous Psychiatric Evidence: R v Hussain (Imran) [2019] EWCA Crim 666 (2 April 2019)
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018319876709 |
| Published date | 01 October 2019 |
| Date | 01 October 2019 |
| Author | Beatrice Krebs |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
Case Note
Diminished Responsibility
and Unanimous Psychiatric
Evidence
R v Hussain (Imran) [2019] EWCA Crim 666 (2 April 2019)
Keywords
Extensions of time, jury directions, mental health, murder, diminished responsibility,
withdrawal
In 2013, the applicant, then a student at Coventry University, was convicted of murder. He now sought
an extension of time (five years) and leave to appeal his conviction, relying on the Court of Appeal
decision in Brennan [2014] EWCA Crim 2387 and the Supreme Court decision in Golds [2016] UKSC
61. These had, subsequent to his conviction, clarified the courts’ approach to cases involving mental
health considerations outside the jury’s experience where the sole issue at trial was the partial defence of
diminished responsibility and the psychiatric experts were substantially agreed as to the mental health of
the killer at the time of the homicide.
On 16 January 2013, the applicant drove to Manchester where he attacked and fatally stabbed a young
man. The attack was unprovoked and lacked an apparent motive. Once in custody, the applicant’s mental
health was assessed by three different medical professionals. Having initially denied any symptoms of
mental illness, in subsequent police interviews, he claimed to have been hearing voices taunting and
abusing him. On his account, he had travelled to Manchester, armed with a knife, in order to seek out his
abusers and to make them stop swearing and racially abusing him. The voices directed him to a particular
place where he came across the victim whom he hit three times in the stomach, believing him to be one
of those abusing him. He claimed that he had only wanted to scare the victim and did not think he had
killed him.
At a pre-trial hearing, the judge directed the applicant’s treating doctor, a forensic psychiatrist, to
provide a report. The defence also instructed a forensic psychiatrist and so did the prosecution. The
prosecution’s expert was not called at trial but his opinion was elicited via the defence experts. All three
were agreed that the applicant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the killing and
that this had substantially impaired his responsibility. While they could not rule out the possibility that
the applicant was feigning his symptoms, they believed that he was genuinely experiencing the voices,
and the other behavioural evidence was consistent with this diagnosis.
At trial, the prosecution sought to disprove the experts’ diagnosis and its impact, relying inter alia on
evidence demonstrating extensive planning, Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) footage showing the
applicant driving past the victim on five separate occasions (which was said to disprove the random
nature of the attack), lies told in police interviews, inconsistencies in the accounts given to various
psychiatrists, the lack of previous reporting of mental health issues, the absence of relevant symptoms
when first medically assessed while in custody and the applicant’s denials that he had heard voices or
had intrusive thoughts until he knew the extent of the evidence against him. It was the prosecution case
that the applicant was not suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, that he had feigned his symptoms and
The Journal of Criminal Law
2019, Vol. 83(5) 406–409
ªThe Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022018319876709
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial