R v Beulah Birch
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE MUSTILL |
| Judgment Date | 03 May 1989 |
| Neutral Citation | [1989] EWCA Crim J0503-2 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1989] EWCA Crim J0503-1 |
| Docket Number | No. 5148/Y2/88 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 03 May 1989 |
[1989] EWCA Crim J0503-1
Lord Justice Mustill
Mr. Justice Saville
and
Mr. Justice McKinnon
No. 5148/Y2/88
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MISS S. LETHBRIDGE apepared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. T. LANGDALE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE Crown.
Mr. Justice McKinnon is unable to be present this morning. He has authorised me to say that he agrees with the judgment of the Court which I am about to read.
On 4th August 1988 in the Crown Court at Southwark, Beulah Birch pleaded not guilty to a charge of murder but guilty to manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility. The plea was acceptable to the prosecution and to the Judge (His Honour Judge Butler, Q.C.). After hearing evidence and submissions, the learned Judge made a hospital order, coupled with a restriction order under section 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 without limitation of time.
Mrs. Birch now appeals against the restriction order by leave of the single Judge.
This is a difficult case which raises a number of issues, some of which have not been discussed in any reported case, and since we shall have to express opinions upon them in the context of this appellant's individual circumstances, we shall summarise the facts and medical evidence at greater length than would ordinarily be appropriate.
The appellant, who is 47 years of age, was born and raised in Jamaica. At the age of 19 she married and went to live in Canada. During 1970 the appellant was twice admitted for inpatient treatment at a psychiatric hospital, on each occasion after taking an overdose of drugs. The first incident was associated with excessive drinking. Judging by the reports there were doubts about the seriousness of these apparent attempts at suicide, although she spoke of several previous suicide attempts. Eventually the marriage broke down, according to the appellant because she left her husband in consequence of his infidelity.
The appellant then moved to Germany, where in 1974 she formed a relationship with Paul Birch, a British soldier 12 years younger than herself, whom she subsequently married. For much of the time the marriage seems to have been difficult. According to the appellant her husband was feckless and prone to heavy drinking. There appear to have been two widely spaced incidents of physical violence between the couple, the details of which are not known. Eventually the husband bought himself out of the Army and the appellant found him a job in Kingston-upon-Thames, where she set up her own business as a hairdresser.
It is plain that both the marriage and the appellant's mental condition went seriously downhill during 1986 and 1987. The husband took up with a woman named Carol, of whom the appellant was intensely jealous. The appellant's depressive condition became worse, and her general practitioner prescribed medication, although he suspected that she did not take it regularly. Her consumption of alcohol increased. She quarrelled with her husband about money as well as his unfaithfulness, and during a particularly violent episode she struck him on the head with a bottle, inflicting a wound which had to be stitched.
On the following day she was admitted to hospital with a self-inflicted injury to her wrist. By June 1987 her condition was such that her doctor felt (according to a statement made after the event) that things were coming to a head between herself and her husband, but that it was much more likely that the appellant would do harm to herself than her husband. Be that as it may, it is plain in retrospect that the appellant was preparing herself for an act of violence She succeeded in obtaining a shotgun and two cartridges from some illicit source with a view (so she afterwards said) to committing suicide. At some time – it is impossible to know whether before or after she bought the gun – the barrel was shortened. The doctor thought that she was building up a stock of medicaments with a view to suicide. She began uttering to her friends a series of threats directed towards Carol, her husband and herself.
On 25th August 1987 matters reached a crisis. During the previous evening She had made a long and rambling tape recording, the gist of which (so far as it is possible to make sense of it) was that she intended to commit suicide and to take her husband with her: although it is a feature of the tape that she spoke of her husband as if he were already dead. It may be noted that she spoke on the tape of having taken Paul's life because of the way in which he had treated her, and that "It was the greatest pleasure I have ever had in my entire life, pulling that trigger."
The appellant spent part of 25th August in drinking. She also conceived a plan to lure the husband to her flat – by now the two were living apart – by keeping the keys to the family car instead of leaving them for him so that he could use the car after work, as was the usual practice. In company with a friend she waited for the husband to arrive so that, as she told the friend, she could compel him to talk about bills that were not being paid; and for this purpose (again according to her own account) she took out the shotgun so that she could show him that she meant business. It was arranged that the friend would lock the door to prevent him from getting out.
As contemplated, the husband did arrive at the flat to collect the keys and the friend did leave, locking the door behind her. Not long afterwards she heard a shot. The police were called, and arrived after the appellant had been alone in the flat with the husband for some 10 or 15 minutes. They called out and heard the husband calling for help. On forcing an entry they found the husband lying on his back on the floor of the living room, with the appellant astride him. Both were screaming. Between their two bodies was a knife which had been the source of five wounds to the husband's chest, one of them 9 cm. deep, and several superficial wounds.
The husband had severe injuries to the left thigh, caused by a shot at a range of about 3 feet. Subsequent investigation showed that this resulted from an upward shot, fired when the husband was on or near the top of the stairs. In some way he must afterwards have dragged himself, or been dragged, into the living room. The appellant herself had a gunshot wound in her shoulder. She was saying that: "He tried to kill me, so I stabbed him", but also: "I shot him, I wanted to blow his balls off".
The husband soon afterwards succumbed to shock and haemorrhage. The gunshot wound and the knife wounds would each have been sufficient to cause death. Subsequently, in the cuurse of long and difficult interviews with the police the appellant gave a number of accounts of what had happened, some consistent with an accident, others with acts done in self defence; and she asserted that the injury to her shoulder was caused by a shot fired by the husband as he lay on the ground in the living room.
We now turn to the medical evidence before the Crown Court which came from four sources.
First, there was a report from Dr. N.A. Hindson, Senior Medical Officer at H.M. Prison, Holloway, where the appellant had been kept throughout her twelve months of remand: a doctor approved under section 12(1) of the Mental Health ACt 1983. Dr. Hindson had familiarised himself with the witness statements as well as the appellant's own account of events. He expressed the view that the appellant had a premorbid personality with histrionic traits, and that she suffered from diminished responsibility at the material time in the shape of depressive illness.
He also stated that in his opinion "The defendant requires continued psychiatric treatment and it is appropriate that such treatment be given under formal powers of the Mental Health Act 1983 and recommendations are included should the Court make such an order (sec. 37). Treatment is offered by Dr. Holton, on Addison Ward, Long Grove Hospital. I do not feel that she constitutes a danger to the public or represents a serious threat of absconding and so would commend such a placement to the Court."
The second report was from Dr. E.L. Udwin, Regional Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, an approved practitioner under section 12. His conclusion was that the appellant was suffering from mental illness within the meaning of the Act, of a nature or degree which made it appropriate for her to be detained in a hospital for medical treatment. The doctor gave as his reason for concluding that detention was appropriate: "She remains depressed to the point of being a substantial suicide risk. The matter is complicated by her 'wry facade' of denial - and lack of insight."
The third report was from the general practitioner. After an account of her clinical history, he stated that: "I am quite sure that had she not been as ill as she was she would not have harmed her husband."
Finally, there was a detailed report by Dr. Anthony Holton, another Consultant Psychiatrist approved under section 12. His opinion was based on an interview with the appellant, discussions with the doctors at Holloway Prison and with her general practitioner, and on a study of at least some of the papers. The report concludes with a formal statement of the various preconditions of an order under section 37 of the Act and with an offer of a bed for the appellant on Addison Ward at Long Grove Hospital, Epsom.
In the body of the report Dr. Holton said: "The offence with which Mrs. Birch is now charged arises as a result of her own mental state and behaviour but the contribution of her husband is by no means insignificant and, for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Ronald Lonford Golding
...or during such period as may be specified in the order; and an order under this section shall be known as a 'restriction order'." 13 In R v Birch (1989) 11 Cr App R(S) 202 Mustill LJ, giving the judgment of the court, made it clear that the difficult decision for the court as to whether an ......
-
R (Lucinda Vowles) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another
...general background was set out in the greatest clarity in the judgment of this court given by Mustill LJ (as he then was) in Birch (1990) 90 Cr App R 78. The court made clear that the court had to have regard to the conditions set out in s.37(2)(b). It pointed out that a hospital order und......
-
M.j.j.a.b. V. The Scottish Ministers
...2006 SC 221; 2005 SLT 1151 Mullan v AndersonUNK 1993 SLT 835; 1993 SCLR 506 R v Birch (1990) Cr App R 78; (1989) 11 Cr App R (S) 202; [1990] 2 Med LR 77 R v CoxMHLR [1998] EWCA Crim 848; [1999] MHLR 30 R v GoldingUNKMHLRUNK [2006] EWCA Crim 1965; [2007] Crim App R (S) 79; [2006] MHLR 272; [......
-
R v Drew (Anthony James)
...their effect was clearly and authoritatively explained by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (Mustill LJ, Saville and McKinnon JJ) in R v Birch (1989) 11 Cr App R (S) 202, 210: "Once the offender is admitted to hospital pursuant to a hospital order or transfer order without restriction......