R v Brown  EWCA Crim 2796;
 2 Cr App R (S) 27;  Crim LR 223
MANSLAUGHTER, DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY, SENTENCE, CONSECUTIVE SENTENCE, MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
The appellant, Brown was married to the victim and they had two children. The couple was undergoing a divorce. Brown had contact with the children over the weekend. He hid a hammer in one of the children’s bags. Upon returning them to their mother, he killed her with the hammer, while the children were in another room. The children saw him putting their mother’s body in his car. He then left the children at his house and buried the body in a remote place. Following the arrest, psychiatric evidence was produced that Brown had an adjustment syndrome which impaired his ability to exercise self-control at the time of the killing and disposal of the body. The jury acquitted Brown of murder and convicted him of diminished responsibility manslaughter. The judge sentenced him to 24 years imprisonment and a consecutive sentence of 2 years for impairing a coroner in exercising their duty because although the responsibility of the defendant was diminished, it was substantial. Brown appealed on grounds that the opinion of the jury was ignored and insufficient allowance for his diminished responsibility was made by the judge.
(1) Is the issue of whether the responsibility of the defendant although diminished, was substantial, relevant when sentencing him?
(2) Should arithmetical expression of diminished responsibility be given when sentencing the defendant?
(1) The judge was entitled to direct the jury to consider the substantiality of responsibility as the substitution of s. 2(1) Homicide Act 1957 with s. 52(1) Coroners and Justice Act 2009 did not change the test applied by the courts.
(2) The judge was not obliged to set an arithmetical computation of the sentence which would have been passed for murder when applying R v Wood  EWCA Crim 1305. However, this is a useful approach as it identifies the aggravating and mitigating features of the offence.
(3) The sentence is to be fact-based as it was. The consecutive sentence was probably inappropriate, but the total sentence given the mitigating circumstances of Brown’s diminished responsibility and the many aggravating circumstances, was not excessive.
The appeal was dismissed.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
Related ServicesView all
Related ContentJurisdictions / Tags
Content relating to: "UK Law"
UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.
British Westinghouse v Electric Railways
Underground Electric Railways (UER) purchased turbines from British Westinghouse Electric Co (BWEC). The turbines were faulty in that they were......
Bourhill v Young - 1943
Mr Young had been negligently riding his motorcycle and was responsible for a collision with car in which he himself suffered fatal injuries. At the time of the crash, Mrs Bourhill (C) was in the process of leaving a tram about 50 feet away. ...