Walton v The Queen
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1977 |
| Date | 1977 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Crime - Homicide - Diminished responsibility - Unchallenged medical evidence satisfying statutory definition - Whether jury entitled to find defence of diminished responsibility not established -
On February 2, 1974, the defendant gave his girl friend and her mother a lift in his car. During the journey as the result of the defendant's behaviour the girl friend asked him to stop. Both women got out, hailed a passing car and got into it. The defendant approached the car, spoke briefly to the driver and fired two shots with a pistol into the car killing one of the passengers. After a short struggle with his girl friend the defendant drove away and later gave himself up to the police. He was charged with murder and pleaded diminished responsibility. At the trial one of the doctors called by the defendant gave it as her opinion that his mental development had been retarded so as substantially to impair his responsibility for his acts. No medical evidence was led for the Crown. The jury found the defendant guilty of murder. He appealed on the ground that in the light of the uncontradicted medical evidence as to his mental condition the jury were bound to accept the defence and should have been so directed by the trial judge. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
On appeal to the Judicial Committee:
Held, dismissing the appeal, that on an issue of diminished responsibility a jury were bound to consider the medical evidence and its quality and weight with all the other facts and circumstances of the case; that, in all the circumstances of the present case, the jury were entitled not to accept as conclusive the medical opinion that the defendant's mental condition satisfied the statutory definition of diminished responsibility and, accordingly, to decide that the defendant had not established the defence.
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of their Lordships:
Reg. v. Bailey [
Reg. v. Byrne [
Reg. v. Matheson [
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Reg. v. Bathurst [
Reg. v. Jennion [
Reg. v. Lloyd [
APPEAL (No. 33 of 1976) in forma pauperis by the defendant, David Augustus Walton, from the judgment and order of March 12, 1976, of the Court of Appeal of the Barbados Supreme Court (Douglas C.J., Worrell and Johnson JJ.) dismissing his appeal against his conviction in the Supreme Court (High Court) on October 18, 1974, before Williams J. and a jury, of the murder of Cynthia Allder.
The facts are stated in the judgment of their Lordships.
Nigel Murray for the defendant.
Gerald Davies for the Crown.
October 6. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD KEITH OF KINKEL.
This is an appeal by special leave in forma pauperis from a judgment dated March 12, 1976, of the Court of Appeal of the Barbados Supreme Court. The defendant was tried in the Barbados High Court before Williams J. and a jury upon an indictment charging him with having, On February 2, 1974, murdered Cynthia Allder. The defendant pleaded diminished responsibility. On October 18, 1974, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty of murder, and the defendant was sentenced to death. He appealed to the Court of Appeal of Barbados upon the grounds that the trial judge misdirected the jury upon the issue of diminished responsibility and that in so far as the jury rejected that defence their verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence. By...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Khan (Dawood)
...strongly on this case, as had Mr Davey QC before Grigson J. 22 Mr Mansell, for the Crown, relied on the Privy Council decision of Walton v The Queen [1978] AC 788. In that case the defendant had shot someone in a car. His defence at the trial in Barbados was diminished responsibility, but t......
-
Zailani bin Ahmad v Public Prosecutor
...of the medical men, if there are other facts on which they could do so: Sek Kim Wah v PP [1987] SLR 107, following Walton v R (1977) 66 Cr App R 25, R v Byrne and R v Kiszko (1978) 68 Cr App R 62. This court’s decision in Sek Kim Wah v PP was cited with approval in its later decisions in Co......
-
Ong Pang Siew v Public Prosecutor
...of the trial judge, as the finder of fact. In doing so, the trial judge is, in the words of Lord Keith of Kinkel in Walton v The Queen [1978] 1 AC 788 (at 793): entitled and indeed bound to consider not only the medical evidence but the evidence upon the whole facts and circumstances of the......
-
Chua Hwa Soon Jimmy v Public Prosecutor
...for his acts at the material time. 28.In this respect, we adopted the approach in the Privy Council case of Walton v The Queen [1978] AC 788 (which was approved by this court in Zainul Abidin bin Malik v PP [1996] 1 SLR 654 at pp 661-662) in which Lord Keith stated at p 793 the following: [......
-
Court of Appeal
...bound to consider not only the medicalevidence but the evidence upon the whole facts and circumstances of the case’ (Walton vThe Queen[1978] AC 788 p793F; the principle reiterated in RvKhan [2009] EWCA Crim 1569). The questionarising from Blackman is what are those circumstances?On the face......
-
DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY: A LESS VINDICATORY EXCUSE THAN PROVOCATION
...Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice 2004 (Sweet & Maxwell, 2004) (“Archbold 2004”) at para 19-75. 7 In Walton v The Queen[1978] AC 788 (Privy Council on appeal from Barbados), Lord Keith of Kinkel stated at 793: [The] cases make clear that upon an issue of diminished responsib......
-
Diminished responsibility: Jury verdicts and ‘uncontradicted’ psychiatric evidence
...verdicts had been upheld on appeal. However, those cases were all distin-guishable from Brennan. In the first of these cases, Walton v R [1978] AC 788, the accused had pleadednot guilty to murder based on evidence of retarded development. However, this was rejected by the jury inthe High Co......
-
INSANITY DEFENCE
...the time when the act was committed is a question of fact to be determined by a jury, (Rex v. Wangara 10 W.A.C.A. 236; Walton v. R. (1978) 66 Cr. App. R 25) and not by a medical man however eminent, (R. v. Rivett 35 Cr. App. R 87) and is dependent upon the previous and contemporaneous acts ......