R v Golds

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLord Justice Elias
Judgment Date02 May 2014
Neutral Citation[2014] EWCA Crim 748
Docket NumberCase No: 201303449 B1,2013/3449/B1
CourtCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Date02 May 2014

[2014] EWCA Crim 748

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT CHELMSFORD

HIS HONOUR JUDGE BALL QC

T20127132

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Before:

Lord Justice Elias

Mr Justice Sweeney

and

Mr Justice Green

Case No: 201303449 B1

Between:
R
Respondent
and
Mark Richard Golds
Appellant

Mr Andrew Jackson (instructed by The Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent

Mr Stephen Rose (instructed by Taylor Haldane & Barlex Llp) for the Appellant

Hearing date: 4 March 2014

Lord Justice Elias
1

This is an appeal against conviction by leave of the single judge. The appellant was convicted of murder on 11 June 2013 in The Crown Court at Chelmsford before HHJ Ball QC and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 15 years. He had admitted killing his partner on15 July 2012. The only question for the jury was whether it was murder or manslaughter by reason of his diminished responsibility.

2

The circumstances in which the defence of diminished responsibility can be established are set out in section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957. This was amended by section 52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. It is now as follows:

"(1) A person ("D") who kills or is a party to the killing of another is not to be convicted of murder if D was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which –"

(a) arose from a recognised medical condition,

(b) substantially impaired D's ability to do one or more of the things mentioned in subsection (1A), and

(c) provides an explanation for D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.

(1A) Those things are –

to understand the nature of D's conduct;

to form a rational judgment;

to exercise self-control.

(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1)(c), an abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for D's conduct if it causes, or is a significant contributory factor in causing, D to carry out that conduct.]

(2) On a charge of murder, it shall be for the defence to prove that the person charged is by virtue of this section not liable to be convicted of murder."

3

There were three expert medical witnesses each of whom believed that the conditions for establishing diminished responsibility were satisfied. Notwithstanding that, the jury rejected the defence. The appeal now is directed at certain rulings and directions of the judge which the appellant submits rendered the trial unfair and the conviction unsafe.

4

Originally there were six grounds of appeal. The single judge gave leave on two and the appellant sought to renew the application for leave on a further two. One of these, concerning the direction given as to the meaning of "substantially impaired" in section 2(1)(b) was resuscitated with the encouragement of the court. We gave both counsel the opportunity to make written submissions on it, which they did.

The background

5

The essential facts were as follows. The deceased, Claire Parish, and her partner, the appellant, went to a barbecue where members of her family were gathered. There was evidence that Claire had been unhappy at the party and had been drinking. She told a number of witnesses, including her brother and sister, that the appellant had been hitting her. There was a mark on her face and she said that the appellant was responsible for it. However, when challenged, he strongly denied using any violence towards her.

6

R, the deceased's thirteen year old son, witnessed an argument at the barbecue between Claire, who wanted to stay, and the appellant, who wanted to leave. R also said that when asked about how Claire had received a particular scar, the appellant denied that he was responsible but did say that he had caused a different one. The ambiguity of his answer left it uncertain whether he was admitting to having caused it accidentally or deliberately.

7

After the appellant and his partner had separately returned home, the argument continued. The next door neighbour heard raised voices and swearing; he investigated and saw the appellant grab the deceased around the face, grab her by the hair and then slap her across the cheek.

8

R gave evidence that thereafter the appellant was trying to patch matters up but his mother would have none of it. She wanted the appellant to leave; he had packed a case but wanted to stay until morning. The children were locked into their room for a while. The appellant and Claire then had a row over a bank card. The appellant went to the kitchen and returned with a knife in his back pocket. R told his mother that the appellant had the knife and the appellant said that he had taken it in self-defence. R took the knife and told his brother, A, to return it to the drawer. The appellant pushed R away and began to attack the deceased with a second knife. R thought that he was on drugs.

9

A gave similar evidence to R about events immediately before the knife attack. He said that he had seen the appellant punching his mother in the forehead and she hit him back. The appellant then crouched over his mother with a knife saying that he would kill her. He and R went to a neighbour's house to get help.

10

The police had been called to the scene at 9.30 pm. They found the deceased's body wedged between the bedroom door and double bed. The appellant was lying motionless with a hand covering his face. On arrest the appellant had become extremely violent and abusive and was described by officers as snarling and appearing deranged, as if on drugs or alcohol. He tried to bite police officers. He was saying, "I love my kids, but she is evil. The demon's gone. I've killed her. The devil's gone. She had Satan in her eyes." As he was led from the house he had tried to head butt the wall and bite his thumb which had been sliced in two. He was taken to hospital and interviewed two days later.

11

The post mortem identified some 32 sites of bruising and abrasion from 22 separate knife wounds. The primary cause of death was the tearing of a major blood vessel in the liver. The deceased's blood alcohol level was twice the legal limit but the appellant had no trace of any drink or drugs, illicit or otherwise.

The Interview

12

The appellant said in interview that the deceased had had too much to drink. He denied that his behaviour had ever been about having to leave. As to the incident, he recalled the deceased hurting him. She had cut his hand with the knife which she had taken from him. He remembered taking the knife from her and that they were hurting each other but not much more.

13

He said that he had a personality disorder for which he was prescribed medication. He had stopped taking it because he thought he could cope without it. He lived in fear of everything and heard voices; people were talking to him saying things like: "you're hateful, you're ugly, you're a cunt, loads of different things."

The Trial

14

Various witnesses gave evidence for the prosecution about what had occurred at the barbecue and the children described the events leading up to the fatal attack itself as already described.

15

There was evidence of bad character which the judge admitted despite opposition from the appellant, from the deceased's daughter, Stevie Allen. She recounted an occasion when she said that the appellant had admitted assaulting her mother. She had visited the deceased's house and found the appellant leaning against his car. He had told her that her mother did not want to be with him anymore. He told Ms Allen that he had slapped Claire a few times and he was to blame. Following that conversation, Ms Allen had met her mother in town but could not see any injuries. She described the couple as being apparently happy. She said that her mother had lived through an abusive relationship and she was not going to interfere if her mother was happy. The deceased had never complained about the appellant hitting her.

16

The appellant did not give evidence at the trial. He had contended that he was not in a fit state to do so and that no adverse inference should be drawn as a consequence. There was a voir dire held to determine that question. Dr Blandford, one of the three experts who had provided a medical report for the trial, gave evidence in which she essentially adopted the conclusions in her report. Her view was that the appellant ought not to give evidence, given his state of suggestibility and compliance. She was also concerned that he might experience a panic attack or a psychotic episode and it would be ethically inappropriate to put him in that situation.

17

The judge agreed in the light of this evidence that no adverse inference should be drawn from the appellant's failure to give evidence and he directed the jury to that effect. However, the appellant wanted Dr Blandford's view of his current mental state adduced before the jury. The judge disagreed. He ruled that the jury had to focus on the appellant's state of mind when he killed his partner; his current state was not material save to the extent that it justified no adverse inference being drawn from his failure to give evidence.

18

The principal evidence on behalf of the defence was given by three specialist medics, two instructed on behalf of the defence and one by the Crown. Each had been given access to the appellant's medical records and had taken a detailed history from him during the course of interviewing him. The appellant had described a history of mental illness. He had been referred to psychiatric services in 1990 and had thereafter been using them on an increasingly regular basis. He was on medication. The appellant said to each of the doctors that he was never violent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • R v Golds
    • United Kingdom
    • Supreme Court
    • 30 Noviembre 2016
    ...Lady Hale, Deputy President Lord Kerr Lord Reed Lord Hughes Lord Toulson Lord Thomas THE SUPREME COURT Michaelmas Term On appeal from: [2014] EWCA Crim 748 Appellant David Etherington QC Stephen Rose (Instructed by Taylor Haldane & Respondent David Perry QC Tom Little (Instructed by Crown P......
  • David Sellu v The Crown
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 15 Noviembre 2016
    ...a jury question (what the phrase actually connotes has recently been the subject of further discussion by a constitution of this court in Golds [2014] EWCA Crim 748). But overall the provisions of s.2 as amended are altogether significantly more structured than the former provisions, in par......
  • Michael James Brennan v The Crown
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 19 Junio 2015
    ...a jury question (what the phrase actually connotes has recently been the subject of further discussion by a constitution of this court in Golds [2014] EWCA Crim 748). But overall the provisions of s.2 as amended are altogether significantly more structured than the former provisions, in par......
  • R v Michael Brennan
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 22 Julio 2015
    ...(what the phrase actually connotes has recently been the subject of further discussion by a constitution of this court in R v GoldsMHLR[2015] MHLR 426, [2014] 2 CrAppR 17). But overall the provisions of s2 as amended are altogether significantly more structured than the former provisions, i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Mercy Killing
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 79-5, October 2015
    • 1 Octubre 2015
    ...of the newpartial defence, is merely a lack of ability to behave in a way expected by society, referencing the40. Golds (Mark Richard) [2014] EWCA Crim 748.41. Smith (Morgan James) [2001] 1 AC 146.42. Mackay, above n. 6 at 295.43. Inglis [2010] EWCA Crim 2637.44. Livings, above n. 25 at 195......
  • More than Merely More than Minimal: The Meaning of the Term ‘Substantial’ in the Context of Diminished Responsibility: R v Golds [2014] EWCA Crim 748
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 78-5, October 2014
    • 1 Octubre 2014
    ...AppealMore than Merely More than Minimal: The Meaning of the Term ‘Substantial’ in the Context of Diminished ResponsibilityR v Golds [2014] EWCA Crim 748Keywords Murder; Manslaughter; Diminished responsibility; Bad character; Important explanatory evidence; PropensityOn 11 June 2013, G kill......
  • Substantially confused? The paradox of Golds R v Golds [2016] UKSC 61
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 81-2, April 2017
    • 1 Abril 2017
    ...couldmean at least two things: not merely trivial or substantial in the sense of distinctly more than just past thetrivial (RvGolds [2014] EWCA Crim 748).Golds was convicted of the murder of his partner Clare Parrish following trial at Chelmsford CrownCourt in June 2013. Golds admitted to t......
  • Cases
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 78-6, December 2014
    • 1 Diciembre 2014
    ...1614 453R v Bunch [2013] EWCA Crim 2498 114R v Gjoni (Kujtim) [2014] EWCACrim 691 290R v Golding [2014] EWCA Crim 889 294R v Golds [2014] EWCA Crim 748 373R v Grant (Nathaniel) [2014] EWCACrim 143 214R v H [2014] EWCA Crim 1555 457R v Harvey (Shelton) [2014] EWCACrim 54 210R v Howe (John Pa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT