Legal Case Summary
R v Golds [2014] EWCA Crim 748; [2014] 4 All ER 64; [2015] 1 WLR 1030; [2014] 2 Cr App R 17; [2014] Crim LR 744
MURDER, MANSLAUGHTER, DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY, EVIDENCE, SUBSTANTIAL IMPAIRMENT
Facts
Golds admitted to killing his partner. There was disputed evidence that he had previously used physical violence towards 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 admitted evidence of an alleged admission of earlier violence under s. 101(1)(c) Criminal Justice Act 2003. Golds did not give evidence because he was not considered fit to do so. The judge directed the jury not to draw any adverse inference from this and did not permit them to hear Dr Blandford’s evidence about Golds’ mental state at the time of the trial. The jury convicted the defendant of murder and he appealed the decision.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
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?
(3) Was the evidence of the alleged admission of earlier violence admissible, and had the jury been adequately directed about it?
Decision / Outcome
(1) The judge was entitled to refuse to allow the jury to hear Dr Blandford’s evidence about Golds’ mental state at trial. Mental illness and its deterioration were already well supported by the evidence. His condition at trial might also reflect the stress of the proceedings and remand in custody, rather than illuminate his mental state when he killed his partner. The judge could conclude that the additional evidence would not materially assist the jury.
(2) Substantial impairment of the defendant’s ability to understand his conduct, form a rational judgment or exercise self-control 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 trial judge was entitled to leave the ordinary word ‘substantial’ to the jury without further definition. Following R v Simcox, Times, February 25, 1964, if asked for further help, the court preferred a direction explaining that it was possible to find that an impairment had a modest impact that was more than minimal or trivial, but cannot be described as substantial.
(3) The court doubted whether the alleged admission met the test for important explanatory evidence under s. 101(1)(c), but held that it was admissible under s. 101(1)(d). It related to an important issue between prosecution and defence: whether there was a background of violence and whether the experts had relied on an accurate account of the relationship. It was not admitted to show a propensity to commit the fatal attack. Although a reminder that Golds could not answer the allegation in evidence would have been desirable, the omission did not render the conviction unsafe.
The appeal was dismissed.
Original judgment: [2014] EWCA Crim 748.
The subsequent Supreme Court judgment in R v Golds [2016] UKSC 61 explains when a judge should clarify the meaning of substantial impairment for the jury.
