Diminished Responsibility: No Defence without Evidence
| Author | Tony Storey |
| Published date | 01 April 2014 |
| Date | 01 April 2014 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1350/1740-5580-78.2.113 |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
113
Revisiting the Available Amount—Confiscation of Post-acquired Legitimate Assets
future. If such an application were made in 2016, for instance, it would be
10 years after the original order. However, as the prosecution pointed out,
the period in Peacock was 10 years between the original order and the
reconsideration, and that did not prevent an order under s. 22 being made
and upheld.
It is submitted that it is not in the public interest to create a disincentive
to gainful employment in this way. The court could, and should, have
stated that, whilst every case must turn on its particular facts, where a
defendant such as P has obtained assets through hard work, it would not
be ‘just’ to remove them from him.
This interpretation of s. 22 would, of course, still leave it open to the
prosecution to apply for reconsideration in the following situations: where
assets were hidden originally and only came to light some time later;
where they have been obtained by good fortune rather than merit; or
where the defendant is unable satisfactorily to demonstrate their source. It
is submitted that such an approach would be both ‘just’ and would sit
more happily with the rehabilitative element of the general purposes of
sentencing.
Gavin A. Doig
Diminished Responsibility: No Defence without Evidence
R v Bunch [2013] EWCA Crim 2498
Keywords Murder; Diminished responsibility; Amnesia; Alcohol depend-
ence syndrome; Voluntary intoxication
Martin Bunch (MB) and Jeanette Goodwin (JG) had an affair which
ended in late 2010. From early 2011, however, MB made phone calls and
sent text messages to JG in threatening and abusive terms. Eventually in
July 2011 he went to JG’s home and stabbed her to death with a kitchen
knife that he had brought with him. JG was stabbed ‘more than 20 times’,
principally in the upper chest and arm. MB was charged with murder and
was tried at Chelmsford Crown Court in August 2012. Despite ‘over-
whelming’ evidence that MB was the killer, he pleaded not guilty on the
basis that either he was not the killer or, if he was, that he had consumed
so much alcohol (and ‘some’ cocaine) on the day in question that he had
no recollection of what happened and/or that he lacked malice afore-
thought. At his trial, these pleas were rejected and he was convicted of
murder. The trial judge, Gratwicke J, imposed a life sentence with a
minimum term of 27 years’ imprisonment. MB appealed, contending that
Gratwicke J should have directed the jury on the statutory defence of
diminished responsibility, on the basis that MB suffered from alcohol
dependence syndrome.
To continue reading
Request your trial