R v Gittens
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 12 June 1984 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1984] EWCA Crim J0612-23 |
| Docket Number | No. 862/A/83 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 12 June 1984 |
[1984] EWCA Crim J0612-23
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Lane)
Mr. Justice Boreham
and
Mr. Justice Skinner
No. 862/A/83
MR. C. NICHOLLS, Q.C. and MR. ALUN JONES appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. M. HILL, Q.C. and MR. A. COLLINS appeared on behalf of the Crown.
On 24th January 1983 in the Crown Court at Beading before Mr. Justice Kenneth Jones and a jury, the appellant was convicted of the murder of his wife and the rape and murder of his 15-year old step-daughter, and was sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment in respect of the murders and seven years' imprisonment in respect of the rape.
He now appeals against conviction by leave of the single Judge.
The facts of the case are as follows. The appellant's marriage had for some time been unhappy. His wife, it seems, preferred the company of another man to that of her husband. No doubt partly at least as a result of this, the appellant suffered from depression for which he sought and received medical treatment. On 20th June 1982 he was admitted to hospital after he had attempted to hang himself. Thereafter he returned home from time to time on visits. It was during one such visit, on 17th July 1982, that these crimes were committed.
During the evening his wife went out. He stayed at home and had more to drink than was good for him, and also took some of the pills which had been prescribed for him. After she had returned and in the early hours, what started off as a discussion between them turned into a violent argument. She, so he said in evidence, taunted him with regard to the paternity of their two sons. He then clubbed her to death with a hammer.
During this incident Ruth, his step-daughter, came into the room dressed only in a tee-shirt and pants. He chased her into her room where he hit her, raped her and tried to strangle her. The reason he gave for this attack on the girl was that he thought it was his wife he was seeing. The girl later died in hospital.
The issues at the trial were, so far as the killing of his wife was concerned, whether or not he was provoked; so far as both killings were concerned, whether or not he was suffering from diminished responsibility; so far as the rape was concerned, whether it was the full offence or only an attempt.
The only issue before this Court is that of diminished responsibility. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Judge's direction on this aspect of the case was incorrect.
The medical evidence came from four doctors. Drs. Taylor, Brunning and Mackie gave evidence for the defence. They were all in agreement that the appellant was suffering from an abnormality of mind and that his mental responsibility was substantially impaired. They ascribed this abnormality to inherent causes. Dr. Taylor, who had been treating him in hospital before the commission of the crime, was of the view that at the time of the killing the appellant was suffering from an abnormality of the mind which was a disorder of his personality induced by "psychological injury". He took the view that it was probably this, coupled with the drink and provocation, that led to his losing control.
Dr. Brunning had never treated the appellant as a patient. He had, however, no doubt that at the time of the crime he was suffering from a depressive illness due to inherent causes which substantially diminished his responsibility. He thought it quite possible that the appellant really had had the illusion of seeing his wife when it was in fact Ruth.
Dr. Mackie, the Medical Officer at Winchester Prison, had had the defendant in his care since the 20th July, only a day or so after the killings had taken place. Dr. Mackie thought that there were signs of a depressive illness and he was of the opinion that the appellant had a depressive illness at the time of the killings. He thought that it was inherent, -partly hereditary, partly environmental, and that it substantially impaired his responsibility for the killings. He agreed that the drink which this man had taken together with the sleeping pills would have increased his inability to make a decision. It might also be in his view that they disinhibited the appellant. However, without depressive illness, the alcohol and drugs would not have led him to commit crime.
The medical evidence called on behalf of the prosecution was that of a Dr. Wright. He first saw the appellant on the 2nd November. He agreed that at the time of the crime the appellant was clearly suffering from an abnormality of mind, but in his view that abnormality was brought on by drink and drugs and was not inherent nor was it the result of an illness. Consequently, in his view, the abnormality of mind did not come within the terms of the Homicide Act 1957.
The Homicide Act 1957, section 2(1), provides as follows: "Where a person kills…..he shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing."
The passage in the summing up which is the subject of criticism in this case runs as follows: "The next matter which has to be proved here is that not only did he suffer from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Dietschmann (Anthony)
...an abnormality of mind due to inherent causes was authoritatively established in Fenton (1975) 61 Cr App R 261 and confirmed in Gittens [1984] QB 698. In line with those authorities, Tandy [1989] 1 All ER 267 established that drink is only capable of giving rise to a defence under sectio......
-
R v Clive Wood
...rise to an abnormality of mind due to inherent causes was authoritatively established in R v Fenton [1975] 61 CAR 261 and confirmed in R v Gittens [1984] 79 CAR 272 [1984] QB 698. In line with those authorities, R v Tandy [1989] 1 All ER 267 established that drink is only capable of giving ......
-
R v Golds
...meaning of "substantially impaired" except as to how drink was to be accommodated within it. But one of those prior decisions on drink, R v Gittens [1984] QB 698, 703, had contained the conclusion of Lord Lane CJ that the jury should ignore the effect of drink, as later held to be the law ......
-
R v Hendy (Jason Geoffrey)
...the jury to answer were those first stated by the late Professor J C Smith QC in his commentary on the judgment of the Court of Appeal in R v Gittens [1984] Crim LR 554. In Atkinson and Egan the Court of Appeal approved those two questions. Mr Pringle submits that it follows that the law at......
-
Recognising Acute Intoxication as Diminished Responsibility? A Comparative Analysis
...[2003] UKHL 10; R v Egan (1992) 95 Cr App R 278, CA;R v Inseal [1992] Crim LR 35, CA; R vAtkinson [1985] Crim LR 314, CA; R vGittens [1984] QB 698, (1984) 79 Cr App R 272, CA; R vFenton (1975) 61 Cr AppR 261, CA.Recognising Acute Intoxication as Diminished Responsibility? A Comparative pote......
-
Court of Appeal
...may have been significantly hindered by abroad misapplication of the legal principles distilled from the muchearlier case of R vGittens [1984] 3 WLR 327, CA.The Gittens authority established that the task for the jury is toconsider whether the abnormality of the mind, induced by disease or......
-
Alcoholism and Criminal Liability
...condition, other than a condition of a transitory kind.’66 s 23A (1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).67 Gittens (1984) 79 Cr App R 272; [1984] QB 698; RvEgan [1992] 6 All ER 470; 95 Cr App Rep 278;[1993] Crim LR 131.68 Although prior to the introduction of this section the Australian position ......
-
Recent Judicial Decisions
...but not bound by it.Itwill, in practice, often be conflicting.That was made clearinByrne'scase.In a more recent case, R v. Gittens [1984] Q.B. 698, the simple question- was it inherent causesor drink which motivated the acts? was said to bethe wrong one toputto the jury. They had to determi......