R v Bathurst
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 05 March 1968 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1968] EWCA Crim J0305-4 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 2998/67 |
[1968] EWCA Crim J0305-4
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Parker)
Lord Justice Winn
and
Mr. Justice Ashworth
No. 2998/67
SIR DAVID RENTON, Q.C. and MR. V. R. HURWITZ appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
MR. J. COBB, Q.C. and MR. E. LYONS appeared as Counsel for the Crown.
At Leeds Assizes last June this Appellant was convicted of the murder of a young woman called Ann Holt, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He now appeals by leave of the full Court against his conviction.
May I say at, the outset that there is no question here, and never was, of his being acquitted of everything. The killing was admitted the sole defence was diminished responsibility, and the sole question here is whether the verdict was properly one of murder or should be, one of manslaughter.
The facte need not be stated at any length. This is a case of a man who, after being separated from his wife, became infatuated with a girl almost half his age; she was his mistress for 3½ years and finally left him, taking up with another man called Michael Baldwin. There is no doubt that for one reason or another this drove him to desperation, and on a day in March, the 11th March, he went out and bought a knife at a shop in Leeds; that same afternoon he went to the house where this man Baldwin lived, and where he found that the girl was residing. There was talk that he would leave her alone completely if only he could have a few, words in private. with her. They then went into another room, and shortly' afterwards there was a scream. When Michael Baldwin and his father and mother, who were there, went into the room, they found the girl leaning against the wall clutching her left side, a knife was on the floor, and the Appellant knelt down by the side of the girl obviously very distressed saying "Don't die, Ann". She did die, and it was found that she had a stab wound in the heart Those are the only facts in connection with the killing that need to be mentioned.
The Defence sought to set up the defence of diminished responsibility. They called two Psychiatrists, a Dr. Milne and a Dr. Dransfield, who both gave evidence to the effect that the Appellant was suffering at the time from reactive depression, that that was a mental illness, and that his mental responsibility at the time of the killing was substantially diminished.
The Appellant himself gave no evidence, and the Prosecution in rebuttal called Dr. O'Brien and Dr. Fiddian, who gave evidence that in their view the depression was not of such a degree as to be described as a mental illness, and accordingly that he was not suffering from diminished responsibility within the meaning of the section. It is to be observed that the Jury Were out for only 25 minutes and returned a verdict of murder.
The reason why the Court gave leave to appeal in this case was having regard to a comment that the Trial Judge made in relation to the fact that this Accused had chosen to remain silent and not go into the witness box and give evidence. I will read the full passage: " As someone said earlier in this case this is not a question of insanity this is a question of an intelligent man" - may I interpose there to Say that he was a man at the time of the killing of about 40, earning nearly £1,500 a year as an area sales manager of a cash register company. The learned Judge went on: "I emphasise that for this reason, namely, the accused person is under no obligation to give evidence; he has a right to do so if he wishes, but he cannot be required to give evidence. That is something that is often referred to in criminal cases as the privilege of silence. He is entitled to take the attitude Well, you the prosecution get on with it, and put before the court such facts as you can, and I will say nothing'. That is the right of everyone in a criminal case. This man has chosen to remain silent in this case and remain in the dock, even in relation to a matter, where there is a burden of proof upon him. You will, of course, bear in mind that while he is perfectly entitled to remain silent, that is his right, nevertheless the fact that he is entitled to give evidence on his own behalf gives him an opportunity of adding to the material at your disposal on which you could come to a conclusion, and he has not afforded you that opportunity; he has chosen to remain where he is, and the evidence about him, the evidence of the symptoms' or many of them, which the doctors describe depends entirely on what they have said. It may help you to reflect that your task might well have been easier if he had given evidence. He has not. You see, it would be quite wrong, I thinks if you said to yourselves 'Oh well, all this must be nonsense, because he has not given evidence'. But commonsense compels you to reflect, does it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Barry (Adrian)
...… These things … are very much at the heart of what the jury will have to determine.” 14 The judge then referred to the pre-1994 Act case of Bathurst (1968) 52 Cr App R 251 in which Lord Parker CJ said (at pages 255–256): “… this Court feels strongly that while it may be there are cases in ......
-
R v Naudeer
...(1973) 57 Cr. App. R. 196, which form the basis of the approach to the classic direction taken from the judgment of Lord Parker C.J. in R. v. Bathurst, (1968) 52 Cr. App. R. 251. It is undesirable that we should lay down any general principles as to when the trial judge in the exercise of h......
-
Took Leng How v Public Prosecutor
...50 There are relatively few cases that discuss this particular aspect, but we find some guidance in the case of Regina v Bathurst [1968] 2 QB 99. In that case, the accused, having pleaded the defence of diminished responsibility, elected not to give evidence. Instead, medical experts were c......
-
R v Mutch
...Corrie and Bernard type of cases being rare exceptions) the form of comment should be that which Lord Parker, Chief Justice, described in R. v. Bathurst, (1968) 52 Criminal Appeal Reports 251 at page 257 as the accepted form, namely, that "the defendant is not bound to give evidence, that h......
-
The Importance of Full and Frank Disclosure in Family Law Financial Proceedings and the Many Consequences of Non-Disclosure
...(Hayne and Bell JJ). 34 Cf Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (UK) s 34; Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 89A. 35 R v Bathurst [1968] 2 QB 99, 107–8 (Lord Parker CJ); Lee v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 455, 467 [33] (French CJ, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ). 36 Lee v The Queen (2014) 253......
-
Evolution of an Erosion
...police questions). The courts appeared more willing to permit judicial comment on anaccused’s refusal to testify—see R v Bathurst [1968] 1 All ER 1175; R v Mutch [1973] 1 All ER 178; R v Martinez-Tobon[1994] 2 All ER 90. However, s. 1(1)(b) of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 previously prohi......
-
Court of Appeal
...is no evidence from the defendant toundermine, contradict or explain the evidence put before the jury by theprosecution. In R v Bathurst[1968]2 QB 99, Lawton LJ pointed out that'what is said [sc by the judge] must depend on the facts of each case andin some cases the interestsofjustice call......
-
Adversarialism goes West
...plea. When he enters it, it must be entered voluntarily, without improper pressure’ (at [30]).11. CrimPR, r. 3.9(2)(b).12. RvBathurst [1968] 1 All ER 1175.174 The International Journal of Evidence & Proof corollary ofthe classical distinction betweenfactual and legal guilt,namely ‘ ...that ......