R v Lloyd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Appeal
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
51 cases
  • R v Golds
    • United Kingdom
    • Supreme Court
    • 30 November 2016
    ...to re-define, the statutory expression "substantially impaired". 14 Three years later the Court of Criminal Appeal considered the case of R v Lloyd [1967] 1 QB 175, which would appear to be the indirect origin of the submission made in the present case that "substantially impaired" means a......
  • Cardinal Williams Appellant v The Queen Respondent [ECSC]
    • St Vincent
    • Court of Appeal (Saint Vincent)
    • 2 April 2001
    ...of mind" which substantially impaired "mental responsibility." 43 I am cognisant of the decision in Seers 1984 Cr Appeal R 261 and in Lloyd 1965 Cr Appeal R. 61 where the test of substantial impairment was explained as: "Substantial does not mean total, that is to say, the mental responsibi......
  • R v Khan (Dawood)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 27 July 2009
    ...in section 2(1). It was addressed in a number of other cases, but in particular by the Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Lloyd [1967] 1QB 175. Giving the judgment of the court, Edmund Davies J approved the direction of the trial judge, Ashworth J, who had told the jury that 'substantial' did ......
  • R v Dietschmann (Anthony)
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 27 February 2003
    ...of mind as substantially impaired the defendant's mental responsibility within the meaning of 'substantial' set out in Reg v Lloyd [1967] 1 QB 175. …. We accordingly allow the appeal and substitute for the verdicts of murder verdicts of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibili......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • Recognising Acute Intoxication as Diminished Responsibility? A Comparative Analysis
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 76-1, February 2012
    • 1 February 2012
    ...75 JCL 12, commentary by N. Wake, ‘SubstantialConfusion within Diminished Responsibility’; R v Lloyd (Derek William)[1967] 1QB 175, [1966] 2 WLR 13, CA.35 Rv Wood [2008] Crim LR 976 at 978, commentary by A. J. Ashworth, ‘DiminishedResponsibility’.36 Homicide Act 1957, s. 2(1B), as inserted ......
  • 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 October 2014
    ...the defendant’s mental responsibility for the killing was substantially impaired by an abnormality of mental functioning. In R v Lloyd [1967] 1 QB 175, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s direction to the jury that ‘[s]ubstantial need not be totally impaired, so to speak, destroyed......
  • 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 April 2017
    ...jury would regard as amounting topartial insanity or being on the border-line of insanity’ (RvSpriggs [1958] 1 QB 270) (at [11]).RvLloyd [1967] 1 QB 175 was the indirect origin of the submission that ‘substantially impaired’means any impairment greater than the merely trivial. In Lloyd, Ash......
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2008, December 2008
    • 1 December 2008
    ...the famous UK case of R v Byrne[1960] 2 QB 396. 19 Chua Hwa Soon Jimmy v PP [1998] 2 SLR 22 at [31], quoting with approval R v Llyod[1967] 1 QB 175. 20 Witness the tragi-comedic cross-examination of the defence psychiatrist in G Krishnasamy Naidu v PP[2006] 3 SLR 44 at [204]—[206]. 21 The 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