R v Robertson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 30 July 1968 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1968] EWCA Crim J0730-9 |
| Docket Number | No. 5831/67 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 30 July 1968 |
[1968] EWCA Crim J0730-9
The Lord Chief Justice of England
Mr. Justice Melford Stevenson
and
Mr. Justice Bridge
No. 5831/67
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. R. FRISBY appeared as Counsel for the Applicant.
MR. R. HARMAN appeared as Counsel for the Crown.
This applicant was indicted last year for the murder on board a British ship of a member of the crew called Knight. On 6th November at the Central Criminal Court before he was arraigned a finding of disability was returned that he was not fit to be tried and an order was made under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act, 1964, for his admission to hospital. He now applies for leave to appeal against that finding of disability.
Though the facts which the Prosecution would allege and the defence which the applicant would raise are not strictly material here, it is as well to see the background. This man almost all his life has suffered from some form of persecution mania directed against freemasons and the unions in America, where he has resided and worked, and it is quite clear that on this voyage from Australia to this country he had the feeling that people, members of the crew, of which he and this man, Knight, were members, were persecuting him by putting noxious, chemical powders on his clothes and so on. But in regard to the fight which undoubtedly developed between himself and Knight he appears to be quite lucid and clear that he was attacked by Knight and that in self defence he stabbed him with a knife. He freely admits the killing and regrets the killing but says it was in self defence.
At the Central Criminal Court the Prosecution informed the jury that there was a preliminary issue to be tried. Junior Counsel for the Defence attended the opening of the proceedings at the Central Criminal Court out of courtesy to the Court to say that his and his leader's instructions had been withdrawn by the applicant. Thereupon a jury was empanelled and the case was opened by the Crown that this man was unfit to stand his trial. Reference was made to the fact that the doctors would say that he had suffered from delusions and persecution mania and reference was made, as is always made in these cases, to the question of whether he was of sufficient understanding to plead, to challenge jurors, to instruct Counsel, to understand the evidence and the like. Two eminent doctors were called by the Grown and none were called by the Defence, and the jury, after listening to a statement by the applicant and a short summing up by the Judge, were, it is to be observed, out of Court for something like an hour before they returned this finding of disability.
When this matter first came on before the Court as an application on 1st February of this year, the Court was somewhat perturbed at the way these proceedings had been conducted and in particular one point which arose was that the learned Judge in the summing up made no reference whatever either to the burden of proof or the standard of proof necessary in such a case. As a result they granted legal aid and invited the Prosecution to be present.
Now on this renewed application Mr. Frisby takes two points. One does concern this burden and standard of proof but I will take that second. I will deal first with Mr. Frisby's other point, which is really this: that in opening, in the evidence and in the summing up the jury were being directed to matters which did not form the test of disability. As is well known now, the matter is dealt with in the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act, 1964, which talks of an accused being under a disability and the disability is the disability which heretofore had been dealt with in the Criminal Lunatics Act of 1880, which speaks of a person being insane so that he cannot be tried upon the indictment.
What happened was, if I may take it shortly, that Counsel for the Crown in opening referred more than once not merely to the ability...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Berry
...the jury to decide that he is unfit to stand his trial." That passage is also based upon the decision of this Court in the case of R. v. E.G. Robertson (1968) 52 Criminal Appeal Reports, 690. I need read only one short passage from the judgment of the Court which was delivered by the then ......
- Lasalle Shah Lai Leung Noray Guy v R
-
R v Diamond (Stewart Michael)
...as it proceeded? The Court adverted to Scottish authority from the 1940s in support of that view. It was made clear in Robertson (1968) 52 Cr App Rep 690 that the enactment of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 made no difference to the approach. Lord Parker rejected the Crown's sub......
-
Robert Marcantonio v R
...by the defence, the burden of proof is on the defence to establish on a balance of probabilities that the accused is unfit ( Robertson [1968] 3 All ER 557). If it is raised by the prosecution, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is......
-
Table of Cases
...v Roberts, [1954] 2 QB 329 ....................................................................................217, 219 R v Robertson, [1968] 3 All ER 557, 1 WLR 1767 (CA) ............................................... 186, 219 R v Rockey, [1999] OJ No 1352 (CA) .................................
-
Unfitness to Plead and the Vulnerable Defendant: An Examination of the Law Commission's Proposals for a New Capacity Test
...(Insanity) Act 1964, ss 4 and 4A, as amended by the CriminalProcedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991.7R v Robertson [1968] 3 All ER 557.8R v Moyle [2009] Crim LR 586.9R v Moyle [2008] EWCA Crim 3059 at [38].10 Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, s. 4(5), as amended by the D......
-
Court of Appeal
...mustconstitute a minute investigation. (at [16])The Pritchard test was approved in R v Padola (1959) 43 Cr App R 220and R v Robertson (1968) 52 Cr App R 690. More recently, Keene LJ, inR v M [2003] EWCA Crim 3452, stated that these authorities ‘clearlyestablish the law on this topic in this......
-
Appendices A. Canadian, British, and American Case Summaries
...of the issue of itness until it is demonstrated that there is a case to meet. (note : Compare R v Beynon .) R v Robertson , [1968] 3 All ER 557, 1 WLR 1767 (CA) If the issue of itness is being raised by the Crown, the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt is set. (note: This is in co......