R v Squelch [2017] EWCA Crim 1208

Court: Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Facts: D was diagnosed with a paranoid personality disorder. Forensic psychiatric evidence was mixed on whether this impaired his abilities. All the psychiatric experts involved with this case were able to agree that the appellant was suffering from paranoid personality disorder however they disagreed about whether or not the paranoid personality disorder substantially impaired the appellant’s ability to do at least one of the things identified in section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, as substituted by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

Held: The judge properly directed the jury to consider the conflicting evidence and the impact of the disorder on D’s mental state. On the issue of the definition of substantially given to the jury by the judge, the court decided that the definition given sufficiently complies with the decision of Lord Hughes in the Supreme Court case of Golds. The experts themselves had not agreed on this issue of whether the mental issues diagnosed in the appellant substantially impaired his ability to form a rational judgement and exercise self-control themselves; and that it was therefore up to the jury to decide the matter.

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Justice Davis highlighted, "The jury must consider all evidence regarding the impairment of the defendant's mental faculties and the extent to which it affects their responsibility."

💡Leveluplaw : The use of the word substantially is vague and seems to have caused confusion when it comes to qualifying what it means in a practical sense.