Muir v H. M. Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 12 May 1933 |
| Date | 12 May 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 8. |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT.
Lord Justice-General. Lord Sands. Lord Morison.
Insanity in criminal cases—Abnormal state of mind falling short of insanity—Murder or culpable homicide—Duty of judge explicitly to direct jury as to competency of verdict of culpable homicide.
At the trial of an accused for the murder of his wife a special defence of insanity at the time of the commission of the offence was lodged, and a further defence was maintained to the jury that the accused was in such a state of mental unsoundness, falling short of complete insanity, as would reduce the crime from one of murder to one of culpable homicide. Evidence was led upon which the jury would have been entitled, had they so decided, to return a verdict sustaining the latter defence. Counsel for the Crown and for the panel pointed out to the jury that the defence of mental unsoundness falling short of insanity would, if sustained, justify a verdict of culpable homicide. The presiding judge, however, although he dealt with the evidence of mental unsoundness as well as of insanity, did not explicitly direct the jury that a verdict of culpable homicide was the appropriate verdict if they were prepared to sustain the defence of mental unsoundness. The jury found the panel guilty of murder, and he was sentenced to death.
The panel having appealed, the Court substituted a verdict of guilty of culpable homicide for the verdict of guilty of murder, in respect that the attention of the jury had not been explicitly directed by the judge to the competency of such a verdict; quashed the sentence of death; and substituted therefor a sentence of penal servitude for life.
John Maxwell Muir was charged at the instance of His Majesty's Advocate on an indictment which set forth, inter alia,"that you did (1) on 19th January 1933 in the dwelling-house occupied by you at 1 Cameron Place, Craigs Road, Dumfries, assault Lena Winifred Dudson or Muir, your wife, … and strike her on the head with an axe or other similar instrument, and did murder her."
The accused was tried in the High Court at Dumfries before Lord Moncrieff and a jury on 11th, 12th, and 13th April 1933.
The accused pleaded not guilty, and a special defence of insanity at the time of the commission of the alleged offence was lodged. A further defence that the accused was in a condition of mental unsoundness falling short of insanity was also submitted to the jury, and evidence was led in support of these defences. [It was conceded for the Crown at the hearing on appeal that the evidence thus led would have entitled the jury, had they so decided, to sustain the latter defence.] Counsel for the Crown and for the panel both pointed out, in addressing the jury, that a verdict of culpable homicide could be returned if the defence of mental unsoundness short of insanity was sustained.
The presiding judge, in the course of his charge to the jury, dealt with the evidence which had been led in support of the defence of insanity and also with the evidence with regard to mental unsoundness short of insanity. He did not, however, expressly direct the jury that it was open to them to return a verdict of culpable homicide if they were prepared to sustain the defence of mental unsoundness.
The jury unanimously found the panel guilty of murder, and, he was sentenced to death.
The panel applied for leave to appeal to the High Court of Justiciary under section 1 (b) of the Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Act, 1926,1 on the ground, inter alia...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Public Prosecutor v Dato' Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim (No. 3)
-
William Johnston (junior)+charles Woolard V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...conviction of murder and an acquittal, in circumstances where culpable homicide would be a possible alternative: see eg Muir v HM Advocate 1933 JC 46 at page 50 per Lord Sands. In R v Coutts, several of the speeches noted that, as Lord Rodger said at paragraph 88, a direction as to a lesser......
-
R v Coutts (Graham James)
...events might better be regarded as constituting the crime of manslaughter, rather than as involving a mere accident. In Muir v HM Advocate 1933 JC 46, 50, where the jury in a murder trial had not been directed on the possible verdict of culpable homicide on the ground of diminished responsi......
-
Appeal Following Upon A Reference From The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
...isolation. The court had to look at the charge as a whole in the context of the evidence, speeches and issues at trial (Muir v HM Advocate 1933 JC 46, Lord Sands at 49; McPhelim v HM Advocate 1960 JC 17, LJC (Thompson) at 21; approved in Johnston v HM Advocate 1998 SLT 788, LJG (Rodger) at ......
-
The Uncertain Medical Origins of Diminished Responsibility
...22 Scottish Law Review 164–73 and 198–204. The actual phrase‘diminished responsibility’ seems first to have been used in Muir vHM Advocate 1933 JC 46.4. RvSpriggs [1958] 2 WLR 162 at 165, per Lord Goddard CJ.5. G.H. Gordon, The Criminal Law of Scotland, 3rd edn, vol. 1. (W. Green: Edinburgh......