Legal Case Summary
R v Golds [2014] 4 All ER 64; [2015] WLR 1030; [2014] EWCA Crim 748; [2014] 2 Cr App R 17; [2014] Crim LR 744
MURDER, MANSLAUGHTER, DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY, EVIDENCE, SUBSTANTIAL IMPAIRMENT
Facts
Golds admitted to killing his partner and prior to the killing he had sexually assaulted her. The question for the jury was whether he was guilty of murder or manslaughter by virtue of diminished responsibility under s. 2(1) Homicide Act 1957. The three medical experts argued that the conditions for diminished responsibility were satisfied. The judge allowed evidence to be admitted under s. 101(c) Criminal Justice Act 2003. Golds refused to give evidence as he argued that he was not in a fit state to do so. The judge directed the jury not to draw any adverse interference by the refusal and did not permit them to hear the opinion of the medical experts on Golds current mental state. The jury convicted the defendant of murder and he appealed the decision.
Issues
(1) Is the judge entitled not to permit the jury to hear evidence of the current mental state of the defendant?
(2) What is the meaning of ‘substantially impaired’ under s. 2(1)(b) Homicide Act 1957?
Decision / Outcome
(1) The judge is entitled to refuse to the jury to hear evidence of the current mental state of the defendant as it would not materially assist them in taking a decision.
(2) Substantial impairment to the defendant’s ability to take responsibility in the context of diminished responsibility under s. 2(1)(b) Homicide Act 1957 cannot be established simply by virtue of impairment being more than trivial or minimal. The judges had to refuse to provide a further explanation of the term ‘substantial’ on the basis that its meaning is obvious. Following R v Simcox, Times, February 25, 1964, if asked for further help, the judges have to direct the jury that it is possible to find that an impairment had a modest impact that was more than minimal or trivial, but cannot be described as substantial.
The appeal was dismissed.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary requires an important update. The Court of Appeal decision in R v Golds [2014] EWCA Crim 748 was subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court delivered its judgment in R v Golds [2016] UKSC 61, [2016] 1 WLR 5015. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that ‘substantial’ in s. 2(1)(b) of the Homicide Act 1957 carries its ordinary English meaning and is not satisfied merely by impairment that is more than trivial or minimal. However, the Supreme Court provided important clarification on the directions a judge should give to a jury. The Supreme Court held that ordinarily a judge need not direct the jury beyond using the word ‘substantial’ itself, since its meaning is a matter of ordinary language for the jury. But where a jury appears to be struggling with the concept or asks for further guidance, the judge should make clear that ‘substantial’ means something beyond merely more than trivial, and that a weighty, significant or appreciable degree of impairment is required. The Supreme Court also confirmed that R v Simcox was correctly decided on its essential point. Readers should be aware that the article as written reflects only the Court of Appeal stage; the Supreme Court decision represents the final authoritative statement of the law on this point.
