R v Inglis

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLORD JUSTICE HOOPER
Judgment Date12 November 2010
Neutral Citation[2010] EWCA Crim 2269,[2010] EWCA Crim 2637
CourtCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Docket NumberCase No: 2008 02684 B1,Case No: 2010/00661/C1
Date12 November 2010

[2010] EWCA Crim 2269

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM the Crown Court at Blackfriars

HHJ Pontius

Before: Lord Justice Hooper

Mr Justice Langstaff

and

Mr Justice Wyn Williams

Case No: 2008 02684 B1

T 20067255

Between
Martin Andrew Inglis
Appellant
and
The Crown
Respondent

Mr J Sturman QC for the Appellant

Mr M Dennis QC and Mr J Hallam for the Respondent

Hearing date: 24 November 2009

LORD JUSTICE HOOPER
1

On 24 th July 2006 at the Crown Court at Blackfriars (H.H.J. Pontius) the applicant was convicted of the murder on 10 th September 2005 of Charlotte Maltese with whom he had had a long running relationship complicated by break-ups and disputes. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 17 years.

2

There was no dispute that the appellant, as he now is, killed the deceased. The issue before the jury was whether in law the appellant had been provoked. The prosecution did not dispute that the appellant had been to some extent provoked by the deceased but submitted that the provocation was not sufficient to lead a reasonable man to do what the appellant had done.

3

At the conclusion of the hearing we announced that the appeal would be allowed having regard to fresh evidence and a new trial ordered. The fresh evidence shows that the appellant suffered at the time of the killing from bipolar affective disorder (manic depression), hereinafter called “the disorder” and, it is submitted, could properly support the conclusion that the appellant's responsibility was substantially diminished.

4

Because we are ordering a retrial we shall give only brief reasons.

5

Prior to the trial and whilst on bail the appellant had been referred by a general practitioner to a consultant psychiatrist, Dr Newson-Smith, not as part of a forensic assessment in connection with the impending trial but for “therapeutic reasons” (see her letters of 26 April and 16 May 2006). She put him on medication and wrote in a letter to the general practitioner that:

… there is enough evidence to consider Martin Inglis has suffered from pathological mood swings and although I have not seen him in them, a diagnosis of bipolar II is likely as well as many personality and relationship issues.”

6

Of the two forensic psychiatrists instructed by the defence one opined that the appellant was not suffering from any personality disorder at the time of the killing and the other said any evidence of the disorder was equivocal. In those circumstances it is not surprising that the defence ran provocation and not diminished responsibility.

7

This is not a case where a deliberate decision has been made not to “run” a point until conviction and then run that point in the Court of Appeal. There was, at the trial, no realistic forensic basis to advance diminished responsibility.

8

The fresh evidence comes principally from three psychiatrists, including one instructed by the respondent, who agree that the appellant suffered both before and at the time of the killing from the disorder, and indeed continues to suffer from the condition for which he now receives medication. It was also agreed that the appellant was in a depressive phase of the disorder from November 2004 to April/May 2005. There was no dispute that the responsibility of a person who kills in a depressive phase of the disorder may be substantially diminished.

9

It was the conclusion of the psychiatrist instructed by the respondent, Dr Johns, that the evidence in the trial papers showed that the appellant was in a state of remission at the time of the killing. In other words, at the time of the killing, he was in neither a depressive phase nor a manic phase and therefore his responsibility could not have been substantially impaired at the time of the killing. Mr Dennis QC for the respondent took us through that evidence in detail to support that. However Dr Johns said that a remission could occur spontaneously.

10

The conclusion of Dr Johns that the appellant was in a state of remission at the time of the killing was disputed by Dr Joseph and in a written report from one of this country's leading experts on the disorder, Professor Goodwin. In the view of Dr Joseph the appellant was suffering from the symptoms of a depressive episode of the disorder at the time of the killing. Mr Sturman QC also took us through the evidence supporting this conclusion. He pointed to the fact there had been an atmosphere at the restaurant the night before the killing; that the appellant was arguing with her; that he was quiet – a sign of depression – during the riding lesson on the afternoon of the killing; and that the arguments overheard by neighbours tended to involve a raised voice on her side, and little on his, suggestive of the submissive attitude that many people may have when depressed.

11

Mr Sturman also drew to our attention supporting fresh evidence from Erica Malliaro, a financial analyst living now in Boston USA. She was able to give a detailed account of the appellant's condition in the period between May and the killing. Mr Dennis did express his concerns about her evidence but she was not required to attend. On the material available to us her evidence is capable of belief.

12

In answer to the principal submission made by Mr Dennis that the evidence at the trial did not support the conclusion that the appellant was in a depressive episode at the time of the killing, Mr Sturman also made the point that if the defence had been one of diminished responsibility further questions could have been asked of the witnesses who gave evidence, evidence would have been led from Erica Malliaro and another witness and evidence would have been introduced about his behaviour in prison after arrest which, so it is submitted, tends to support the conclusion that at the time of the killing the appellant was in a depressive phase.

13

In our view the fresh evidence is of a sufficient weight and credibility that a jury should consider it on a retrial. Mr Sturman said that, on his present instructions, the only defence at the retrial would be diminished responsibility. We invite the nominated trial judge to conduct a case management hearing as soon as practicable and to make the necessary directions to ensure that the retrial is conducted in accordance with the overriding objective in Part 1 of the Criminal Procedure Rules.

[2010] EWCA Crim 2637

COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT

The Common Serjeant

Before : The Lord Chief Justice Of England And Wales

Mr Justice Irwin

and

Mr Justice Holroyde

Case No: 2010/00661/C1

Between
R
and
Inglis

Mr A Newman QC and Mr G Harrison for the Appellant

Miss M Moore QC and Mr R O'Sullivan for the Respondent

Hearing date : 20 th October 2010

The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales:

1

On 7 July 2007, when he was 21 years old, Thomas Inglis, a fit young man, was being taken to hospital in an ambulance. On the way the back door opened three times. On the third occasion he fell out and suffered catastrophic head injuries.

2

Two months later, on 4 September 2007, his mother, Frances Inglis, the appellant, tried to kill her son by injecting him with heroin as he lay in his bed in hospital in Romford. He suffered cardiac arrest. Although he was resuscitated, he suffered further consequential deterioration in his condition. The appellant was arrested. After she denied any responsibility for the presence of heroin, she was charged with attempted murder. In the interests of Thomas's safety she was granted bail subject to a condition that she should not visit him.

3

Just over a year later, on 21 st November 2008, having carefully planned how to gain access to her son in breach of bail, the appellant killed Thomas by again injecting him with heroin. It is as well to emphasise at the outset that this was not, and it has never been suggested that it was, an assisted suicide.

4

On 20 January 2010 at the Central Criminal Court, before the Common Sergeant of London and a jury, the appellant was convicted of attempting to murder her son in September 2007, and after the judge concluded there was no evidence on which to leave the defence of provocation to the jury, of murdering him in November 2008. She was sentenced to the mandatory term for murder of life imprisonment. The minimum term to be served before parole could be considered was assessed at 9 years, less 423 days spent on remand.

5

This is an application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. We must address the facts in some detail.

6

Thomas Inglis was born in April 1986, one of the three sons of Alex and Frances Inglis. The marriage ran into difficulties and in 1996 they parted. Some features of the appellant's medical history at that time are relevant. In December 1995 an examination revealed that she had “the hallmarks of a depressive illness”. By the following March her situation had not changed, and she remained “distressed and depressed” and was advised to take an anti-depressant. In June it was reported that she had ceased taking the medication because she was worried she would become dependent on anti-depressants. Some 10 years or so later, but before the accident to Thomas, in June 2006, a fresh diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder was made. In the meantime the appellant,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • R v Kelly and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 16 June 2011
    ...R v Jones [2006] 2 Cr App R (S) 12, R v Height and Anderson [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 656, R v M, AM and Kika [2010] 2 Cr App R (S) 117 and R v Inglis [2010] EWCA Crim 2637. 6 Thus in Height and Anderson the court observed (at para. 29): "We have lost count of the number of times when this cour......
  • Nicklinson v Ministry of Justice; R (on the applicaion of AM) v DPP
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 31 July 2013
    ...the defendant acted out of compassion or familial love: see Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789 per Lord Mustill at 892E-893A; and R v Inglis [2010] EWCA Crim 2637; [2011] 1 WLR 1110 per Lord Judge CJ, para 37. Nor is there a general defence of necessity: see R v Dudley and Stephens......
  • R v Oakes R v Restivo R v Roberts R v Simmons R v Stapleton
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 21 November 2012
    ...v Clark (Raymond Dennis) [1996] 2 Cr App R 282, CAR v Height (John) [2008] EWCA Crim 2500; [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 656, CAR v Inglis [2010] EWCA Crim 2637; [2011] 1 WLR 1110, CAR v Jones (Neil) [2005] EWCA Crim 3115; [2006] 2 Cr App R (S) 121, CAR v M [2009] EWCA Crim 2544; [2010] 2 Cr App R ......
  • R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice (Attorney General and another intervening) R (AM) v DPP and Others (Same intervening) [DC]
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 13 November 2012
    ...very easily become a cover for selfish or ignoble reasons for killing, not least because people often act out of mixed motives.” 66 55. In Inglis [2010] EWCA Crim 2637, [2011] 1 WLR 1110, Lord Judge CJ giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division quoted large parts of para......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 books & journal articles
  • Making the case for ECRIS
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 21-4, October 2017
    • 1 October 2017
    ...Decision 2009/316/JHA, code 0810 00.78. For example in the form of euthanasia or so called ‘mercy killing’ (see for example RvInglis [2010] EWCA Crim 2637;Jackson, 2013.344 The International Journal of Evidence & Proof available for this offence would be arson and it is likely that this is ......
  • Court of Appeal
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 75-2, April 2011
    • 1 April 2011
    ...where a contention to that effect ismade before the court.Jill MolloyMercy Killers and the Sentencing Rules—An Uneasy Fit?Rv Inglis [2010] EWCA Crim 2637Keywords Murder; Mercy killing; Diminished responsibility; Senten-cing; Mitigation; AggravationIn July 2007, Thomas Inglis, the appellant’......
  • Political Rhetoric or Principled Reform of Loss of Control? Anglo-Australian Perspectives on the Exclusionary Conduct Model
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 77-6, December 2013
    • 1 December 2013
    ...16 October 2014.167 Tolmie, above n. 164. See also the case of Rv Inglis [2010] EWCA Crim 2637,[2010] All ER (D) 140 (Nov) where a mother injected her son with a fatal dose of‘heroin so that his life could be ended to take him out of his misery and end hispain’ and Rv Inglis (2011) 75 JCL 1......
  • Mercy Killing
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 79-5, October 2015
    • 1 October 2015
    ...21 Mitford Street, Fulwell, sunderland, SR6 8HT, UK.E-mail: amandaclough@hotmail.com1. Cocker [1989] Crim LR 740.2. Such as Inglis [2010] EWCA Crim 2637.The Journal of Criminal Law2015, Vol. 79(5) 358–372ªThe Author(s) 2015Reprints and permissions:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: A......
  • 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