R v Brennan [2014]

Court: Court of Appeal

Facts: The defendant (D) committed a savage attack that resulted in the death of the victim (V). D sought to rely on the defense of diminished responsibility under Section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, presenting uncontradicted expert evidence indicating that severe mental illnesses impaired his ability to exercise self-control at the time of the attack. Despite this evidence, the Crown did not present any expert witness to counter D's claims. However, the trial judge did not withdraw the murder charge from the jury, and D was ultimately convicted of murder.

Issue: Whether the trial judge should have withdrawn the charge of murder from the jury, given the uncontradicted expert evidence supporting the defense of diminished responsibility.

Held: The Court of Appeal allowed D's appeal, overturning the murder conviction and substituting it with a conviction for manslaughter. Davis LJ emphasized that when there is uncontradicted expert evidence supporting diminished responsibility, the trial judge should withdraw the murder charge from the jury if no properly directed jury would convict D of murder.

Key Judicial Statements: Davis LJ stated that it is "unprincipled for the charge to be left to the jury simply because the prosecution wishes it to be," reinforcing the necessity for a fair trial based on the evidence presented. He highlighted the importance of withdrawing murder charges in cases where the evidence indicates that a conviction for murder would not be justifiable.

💡 Leveluplaw: the legal principle that the presence of uncontradicted expert evidence supporting a defense of diminished responsibility necessitates the withdrawal of a murder charge from the jury if it is clear that no properly directed jury would convict the defendant. It emphasizes the need for fairness in the trial process, particularly in cases involving mental health considerations, and affirms