R v Stewart (James)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE TOULSON |
| Judgment Date | 26 March 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWCA Crim 1954,[2009] EWCA Crim 593 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2007/04270/D4,No: 200704270/D4 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 26 March 2009 |
[2008] EWCA Crim 1954
Lord Justice Toulson
Mr Justice Andrew Smith
Mr Justice Bean
No: 200704270/D4
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
Mrs M Smullen appeared on behalf of the Applicant
We think we should give leave to appeal against conviction. The first point that you raise, and the principal point, is arguable particularly in the light of Wood. It is a little more difficult for us at this stage to evaluate the second and third points you raise about the adequacy of the judge's summary of the experts' evidence. But we feel that, in any event, the court looking at the first issue is going to want to do so in the context of the expert evidence given, and therefore we will give you leave on those grounds too. We propose to refer the application for leave to appeal against sentence to the Full Court dealing with the appeal against conviction.
MRS SMULLEN: My Lord, I am most grateful.
There remains one or two matters of directions. We think that you should serve a skeleton argument not later than seven weeks before the hearing of the appeal, and it will be helpful if that contained, or had as an annexe to it, a summary of what you say was the expert evidence advanced on both sides.
MRS SMULLEN: Indeed, my Lord.
Any skeleton argument from the respondent in response should be served not later than four weeks before the hearing of the appeal. We think that you should then be responsible, after consulting with the respondent, for ensuring that the office has the necessary bundles of documents, and that should be done not later than three weeks before the hearing. We envisage that the necessary documents will be the summing-up, the relevant experts' reports, any relevant transcripts of evidence of the experts, the skeleton arguments, a joint list of authorities and any academic writings intended to be cited. If there are photocopies provided so much the better, and if the relevant passages are marked up that would be even better still.
MRS SMULLEN: Indeed, my Lord. Can I ask this, I am not sure of the procedure, but that legal aid be granted so that we can obtain the transcripts of the expert evidence?
Now, we have a list of the experts, of course, at the start of the transcript of the summing-up.
MRS SMULLEN: It was Dr Chesterman and Dr Alcock.
I say we have it, we usually do, we don't appear to on this occasion
MRS SMULLEN: There were simply two psychiatrists in effect.
Right.
MRS SMULLEN: Dr Chesterman for the Crown and Dr Alcock for the defence.
Yes. Well, there should be transcripts of their evidence.
Lastly, we think that this case might be suitable for listing before the new Lord Chief Justice, subject, obviously, to competing demands of other cases.
MRS SMULLEN: Indeed, my Lord. I am grateful. Thank you very much.
Then we come to representation. What representation do you seek?
MRS SMULLEN: Well, we had two counsel, two juniors, at trial. Would your Lordship consider two juniors in respect of this?
Why do you need two?
MRS SMULLEN: I probably don't need two, but I am thinking it might assist with the preparation. But if your Lordship thinks that an over optimistic application then I won't pursue it. Would it perhaps be more suitable to have solicitor and one junior?
I am not sure why a solicitor is going to be needed. This is going to be legal argument based on the documents already mentioned.
MRS SMULLEN: So be it.
This does not need investigation. If the court is going to be reviewing this area of the law, it is a matter of some importance. Has consideration been given to having leading counsel?
MRS SMULLEN: It has not, but I will consider that. Can I ask for the moment just for one counsel, and perhaps I can apply to the court if that is considered appropriate?
( Pause)
We think that this would be a suitable case for leading and junior counsel, leading counsel because of its potential importance and junior counsel for continuity.
MRS SMULLEN: My Lord, I am grateful. Thank you very much. Can I assist your Lordships with any further matters?
No, thank you very much.
[2009] EWCA Crim 593
The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
Mr Justice Wyn Williams and
Mr Justice Holroyde
Case No: 2007/04270/D4
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT BLACKFRIARS
HIS HONOUR JUDGE MARRON QC
Mr O Pownall QC and Mrs M Smullen for the Appellant
Mr B Altman QC and Miss R Karmy-Jones for the Crown
Hearing dates: 17 th February 2009
The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales:
On 16 July 2007 in the Crown Court at Blackfriars before His Honour Judge Marron QC and a jury James Stewart was convicted of the murder of Ian Liddle. This is his appeal against conviction.
During the night of 29 th August 2006 the appellant and Ian Liddle were sleeping rough in the area of Marble Arch in London. Both men, and indeed a number of those with them had been drinking heavily, and they were all severely intoxicated. The appellant suffered from alcohol dependency syndrome, at the extreme end of this condition. Some relatively minor trouble developed in the early evening, initially between the deceased and another man, but at some point the deceased turned his attention towards the appellant and struck him, causing a laceration across his nose and bleeding under his eye. Much later that night the appellant subjected the deceased to an attack of extreme violence which caused fatal injuries. There were numerous blunt force impacts as well as injuries to the deceased's head caused by a sharp jagged object. There was a deep incised wound to his neck, likely to have been caused by a shard of glass. His body was found slumped in some flower beds in the early hours. The cause of death was brain damage and blood loss.
A large quantity of blood was later found on the appellant's clothing as well as the jacket worn by the deceased. The blood distribution was consistent with the two men having been in close proximity in a fight. The deceased was probably sitting on a bench when he was struck several blows with sufficient force to spread blood on the wall and ground behind him. He remained on the bench while blood dripped into a pool on the ground beneath it. The area between the flower bed where he was found and the bench where he was sitting was also riddled with blood, and the distribution of some of the blood suggested that the two men had rolled around in this area.
When the police arrived the appellant told the officers that he knew something about what had happened and he admitted responsibility for killing the deceased. He was arrested and taken to a police station where he said that the deceased had kept pestering him, that “he was a wanker, but he did not deserve this”. In the course of an interview in the presence of his solicitor he made a prepared statement. The relevant part began:
“I remember very little of the events of yesterday evening. I came to London about 10 days ago and have been drinking very heavily since. I have been staying all the time on the grassy area of Marble Arch. Yesterday was my birthday and I drank particularly heavily then. I was drinking vodka and wine and I was extremely drunk.”
He said that the deceased was threatening and aggressive, and that he recalled the moment when the deceased punched him, but that thereafter his memory was hazy. He remembered fighting with the deceased and feeling scared of him. He did not remember using a weapon. When he realised that Liddle was dead, he waited for the police to arrive and handed himself in to them. He went on to observe:
“I am a chronic alcoholic and have been so for a year or more. I cannot control my drinking. I have attended AA meetings and have tried to get rehab treatment for this. I have blackouts and periods I can't remember as a result of excessive drinking before.”
After the interview he told the officers that he did not care about himself, that he was ashamed of himself, and he wanted to go to jail.
Samples taken after the appellant's arrest showed that the level of blood alcohol in his system was approximately 4 times the legal limit for driving.
The prosecution case was that the appellant killed the deceased intending to do him really serious harm. The defence case was diminished responsibility, based on alcohol dependency syndrome. Although the Crown accepted that the appellant was a chronic alcoholic, the defence contentions that the appellant's consumption of alcohol in the period immediately before the fatal attack was involuntary and that his actions at the time when he killed the deceased resulted from abnormality of mind caused by disease or injury were rejected.
The appellant was examined shortly after 9.00am by a general practitioner. The appellant said that he had an alcohol problem and suffered from depression. He had had a history of drug...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephen andrew Dowds v The Queen
...See, most recently, R v Wood [2008] EWCA Crim 1305; [2008] 2 Cr App R 34 at 507 – in particular paragraph [23]—and R v James Stewart [2009] EWCA Crim 593; [2009] 2 Cr App R 30 at 500 – in particular paragraphs [26] and [29]. 13 This court's judgment in Wood usefully explains what is very ......
-
R v Nicholas John Foy
...rise to an abnormality of mental functioning which can found the defence of diminished responsibility: Dowds (cited above); Stewart [2009] EWCA Crim 593, [2009] 2 Cr. App. R 72 What is the position, however, where there is an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a combination of......
-
Daniel v The State
...alcohol (or taking of drugs) leading to intoxication was "the involuntary result of an irresistible craving for or compulsion to drink": R v Stewart [2009] 1 WLR 2507, para 31. Mr Knox submits that the evidence at trial does not support the notion that the appellant was a drug addict or an......
-
DPP v McGinley
...which have carefully considered the interaction between alcohol/drug ingestion and mental disorder: R v. Dietschmann [2003] UKHL 10; R v. Stewart [2009] EWCA Crim 593; [2009] 2 Cr. App. R 30; and R v. Kay (Robert; Joyce (Trevor) [2017] EWCA Crim 647; [2017] 2 Cr. App. R. 16. For present......
-
Recognising Acute Intoxication as Diminished Responsibility? A Comparative Analysis
...12; Horder, above n. 12; LawCommission, Intoxication and Criminal Liability, Law Com. Report No. 314 (2009).70 See, e.g., R v Stewart [2009] EWCA Crim 593, [2009] 1 WLR 2507; R v Wood[2008] EWCA Crim 1305, [2008] Cr App R 34; R v Tandy [1989] 1 WLR 35,(1988) 87 Cr App R 45, CA.71 R vDietsch......
-
Diminished Responsibility: No Defence without Evidence
...misgivings about the acceptability of alcohol dependence syndrome as the basis of a diminished responsibility plea. In R v Stewart [2009] EWCA Crim 593, [2009] 1 WLR 2507, Lord Judge CJ in the Court of Appeal stated that:Whether or not brain damage is discernible, alcohol dependency syndrom......
-
Court of Appeal
...decision to reject theappeal confirm ‘a long line of authority’, including Dietschmann [2003] UKHL 10; [2003] 1 AC 1209and Stewart [2009] EWCA Crim 593, [2009] 2 Cr. App. R. 30, to the effect that voluntary intoxication isirrelevant in a murder trial except when it might have a bearing on t......
-
Court of Appeal
...was originally intended byParliament.Christopher J. NewmanIntoxication in the Dock: Specimen Directions for JurorsR vStewart (James) [2009] EWCA Crim 593Keywords Alcohol dependency syndrome; Alcoholism; Diminishedresponsibility; Jury directions; MurderThe appellant (S) was convicted of murd......