R v Matheson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1958 |
| Year | 1958 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal |
Criminal Law - Murder - Diminished responsibility - Standard of proof - Medical evidence as to state of mind - Unchallenged medical evidence that abnormality such as substantially to impair mental responsibility - No evidence to contrary - Verdict of murder - Whether in accordance with evidence -
The appellant, a confirmed practising sodomite, killed a boy, cut the body in half, disembowelled it packing the intestines in a suitcase, hid the remains, sent anonymous postcards to the boy's mother indicative of a desire to torture her, and gave himself up to the police.
At the trial of the appellant for capital murder, the defence of diminished responsibility under section 2 (1) of the Homicide Act, 1957,F1 was raised. Three doctors who gave evidence on behalf of the appellant were of the unanimous opinion that he was suffering from such an abnormality of mind (due to arrested or retarded development) as substantially to impair his mental responsibility; the prosecution did not challenge that opinion or call evidence in rebuttal; nevertheless the jury convicted of capital murder. On appeal against conviction on the ground, inter alia, that the verdict, in not giving effect to the defence of diminished responsibility, was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence:—
Held, that as there was unchallenged evidence that the appellant was within the provisions of section 2 of the Act, and no evidence that he was not, the verdict was not supported by the evidence, and must be set aside and a verdict of manslaughter substituted.
Although there was evidence of premeditation, an abnormal mind is as capable of forming an intention and desire to kill as one that is normal. Nor was the view of the doctors displaced by the postcards — a desire to torture the mother was a sign of abnormality, as was the revolting nature of the crime.
Per curiam. A plea of guilty to manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility should not be accepted; the issue must be left to the jury as it must be if the defence is one of insanity. If, on an indictment for murder, the defence ask for a verdict of manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility and also on some other ground such as provocation, and the jury return a verdict of manslaughter, the judge may, and generally should, then ask them whether their verdict is based on diminished responsibility or on the other ground or on both.
APPEAL against conviction.
The appellant, Albert Edward Matheson, was convicted at Durham Assizes before Finnemore J. of the capital murder of Gordon Lockhart, a boy aged 15. The case for the prosecution was that the appellant killed the boy by hitting him on the head with a bottle filled with water and then with a claw hammer, and that the crime was committed in the course or furtherance of theft. The facts are fully stated in the judgment.
At the trial, the defences put forward were: (1) that the appellant was suffering from diminished responsibility within the meaning of section 2 of the Homicide Act, 1957, and (2) that the murder was not in the course or furtherance of theft, so that, if the defence of diminished responsibility was not accepted, it was not capital murder.
The appellant appealed against his conviction on the grounds, inter alia, that the verdict of the jury could not be supported by the evidence either on the issue of diminished responsibility or on the issue whether the killing was committed in the course of furtherance of theft. On the issue of diminished responsibility (which was the only point considered on the appeal) it was submitted that the only evidence put forward...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- R v Bailey (Note)
- Public Prosecutor v Kee Hang Boon
- Capital Corporation Securities Sdn Bhd v Abdul Malek Beh bin Abdullah
- Capitalcorp Securities Sdn Bhd v Ab Malek Beh bin Abdullah
-
ENLARGED PANELS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SINGAPORE
...[1954] 2 QB 149; Morelle Ltd v Wakeling [1955] 2 QB 379; R v Vickers [1957] 2 QB 664; R v Hopkins (1957) 41 Cr App R 231; R v Matheson [1958] 1 WLR 474; R v Evans [1959] 1 WLR 26; R v Green [1959] 2 QB 127; R v McVitie [1960] 2 QB 483; Gelberg v Miller [1961] 1 WLR 153; R v Patterson [1962]......
-
Diminished Responsibility and Unanimous Psychiatric Evidence: R v Hussain (Imran) [2019] EWCA Crim 666 (2 April 2019)
...nor the UKSC in Golds had changed the law. In Brennan, the court had applied existingprinciples set out as long ago as Matheson (1958) 42 Cr App R 145. In Golds, the UKSC had beenprimarily concerned with the interpretation of s 2(1)(b) of the Homicide Act 1957, but Lord Hughes(with whose ju......
-
Diminished responsibility: Jury verdicts and ‘uncontradicted’ psychiatric evidence
...it is far from the first 16 Court of Appeal 17 such case since 1957. The present case is similar to the decisions in R v Matheson [1958] 1 WLR 474, Rv Bailey [1961] Crim LR 828; (1978) 66 Cr App R 31 and R v Pearce (2000; unreported). In the firstcase, Albert Matheson, 52, killed a 15-year-......