R v Spriggs
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1958 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
5 cases
-
R v Golds
...10 Soon after its introduction, the new partial defence was considered by the Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Matheson [1958] 1 WLR 474, R v Spriggs [1958] 1 QB 270 and R v Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396. In the first case there was no occasion for discussion of the meaning of "substantially impa......
-
Kim Louise Scarsbrook Or Galbraith V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...with judges because of the difficulty of explaining the matter any more clearly. Lord Goddard L.C.J. spotted this (R. v. Spriggs [1958] 1 Q.B. 270 at p. 274) and we are acutely aware of the difficulty ourselves. The observations that we now go on to make about the underlying principles of o......
-
R v Byrne
... ... This court has repeatedly approved directions to the jury which have followed directions given in Scots cases where the doctrine of diminished responsibility forms part of the common law. We need not repeat them. They are quoted in Reg. v. Spriggs.F7 They indicate that such abnormality as “substantially impairs his mental responsibility” involves a mental state which in popular language (not that of the M'Naghten Rules) a jury would regard as amounting to partial insanity or being on the border-line of insanity ... It appears to us that ... ...
-
Scarsbrook or Galbraith v Hm Advocate
...v HM AdvocateSC 1933 JC 46 R v ByrneELR [1960] 2 QB 396 R v SeersUNK (1984) 79 Cr App R 261 R v SmithELR [2001] 1 AC 146 R v SpriggsELR [1958] 1 QB 270 Rose v The QueenELR [1961] AC 496 Russell v HM AdvocateSC 1946 JC 48 Williamson v HM AdvocateSC 1994 JC 152 Textbooks etc referred to: Ande......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
-
Substantially confused? The paradox of Golds R v Golds [2016] UKSC 61
...that of the M’Naughten Rules) a 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 t......
-
The Uncertain Medical Origins of Diminished Responsibility
...and 198–204. The actual phrase‘diminished responsibility’ seems first to have been used in Muir vHM Advocate 1933 JC 46.4. RvSpriggs [1958] 2 WLR 162 at 165, per Lord Goddard CJ.5. G.H. Gordon, The Criminal Law of Scotland, 3rd edn, vol. 1. (W. Green: Edinburgh, 2000) ch. 11.6. J.H.A. Macdo......