Jury told of di­min­ished re­spon­si­bil­ity de­fence

The Peterborough Evening Telegraph - - News -

The court heard howthere was lit­tle dis­pute that Car­roll had killed his wife. An­drew Jack­son, pros­e­cut­ing, told the jury: “We­un­der­stand it is not in dis­pute by this de­fen­dant that he did kill his wife that morn­ing. “You are likely to hear ev­i­dence from psy­chol­o­gists. “It is likely you will be asked to con­sider a par­tic­u­lar de­fence which is only avail­able in mur­der cases. It is called di­min­ished re­spon­si­bil­ity. “It means if the de­fence is suc­cess­ful it re­duces what would oth­er­wise be mur­der to manslaugh­ter.” The court heard a state­ment from psy­chi­a­trist Neil Hunt, who spoke to Car­roll at Thorpe Wood Po­lice Sta­tion af­ter he had been ar­rested. He said: “I did not find ev­i­dence of him suf­fer­ing from men­tal ill­ness, and did not iden­tify any other men­tal health needs.” Di­min­ished re­spon­si­bil­ity is cov­ered by the 1957 Homi­cide act. The act says: “Where a per­son kills or is a party to the killing of an­other, he shall not be con­victed of mur­der if he was suf­fer­ing from such ab­nor­mal­ity of mind ( whether aris­ing from a con­di­tion of ar­rested or re­tarded devel­op­ment of mind or any in­her­ent causes or in­duced by disease or in­jury) as sub­stan­tially im­paired his men­tal re­spon­si­bil­ity for his acts and omis­sions in do­ing or be­ing a party to the killing.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.