R v Matthews Mrs Matthews was tried at Lincoln Crown Court and was convicted of murder contrary
Question:
R v Matthews Mrs Matthews was tried at Lincoln Crown Court and was convicted of murder contrary to common law and causing GBH with intent contrary to section 18 of Offences Against the Person Act 1861. During Mrs Matthews's trial, it was established that she had inflicted a serious head injury upon Miss Viv Devi by punching her hard in the head, causing her to fall against a mirror. Miss Devi had been rushed to the hospital and underwent several hours of major surgery as a result of the attack. Despite the attempts to save her, she died of her injuries. Mrs Matthews's evidence was that she had just 'lost it' when she saw Miss Devi shopping with Mr Matthews. Mr Matthews, having left his wife, Mrs Matthews, to cohabit with Miss Devi, with whom he had been having a relationship for several months. Mrs Matthews admitted that she had intended to do serious harm to Miss Devi when she punched her but sought to rely on the statutory defence set out in section 54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to her reduce her murder conviction to manslaughter. It was also established that, shortly after her attack on Miss Devi, Mrs Matthews had begun to act strangely, becoming agitated but also dissociated and unresponsive. She became aggressive and attacked a paramedic tending to Miss Devi, causing the paramedic to sustain serious injuries to her face and upper body. During the attack on the paramedic, Mrs Matthews was heard shouting, 'I'm sorry - this is not me. Why are you making me hit her? Stop making me do this. There was medical evidence that Mrs Matthews suffers from a rare psychiatric condition which causes brief but severe psychotic episodes during which she hears voices, that she feels powerless to stop. There was further evidence that Mrs Matthews sometimes hears instructions from these voices, which she feels compelled to follow. At trial, before HHJ Lee, Mrs Matthews's advocate made the following arguments: 1. the defence of loss of control was available since Mrs Matthews had lost her control due to a relevant qualifying trigger and so Mrs Matthews's murder conviction should be reduced to manslaughter; 2. the defence of insanity was available to those who, whilst realising their actions were contrary to the law, felt powerless to stop so acting. HHJ Lee rejected both of those submissions, ruling that: 1. the defence of loss of control was not available due to the provisions of section 55(6)(c); 2. on the defence of insanity, it was open to the jury to find Mrs Matthews guilty of section 18 if they thought that Mrs Matthews appreciated that her actions in attacking the paramedic were legally wrong per R v Windle [1952] 2 QB 82. The defence of insanity was not available to an accused who knew their actions were legally wrong but who was compelled to act. Mrs Matthews was convicted and she now appeals on the basis that the trial judge misdirected the jury.
QUESTION - I am the lead appellant for this mooting exercise. I need three submissions for this ground of appeal below and a maximum of three authorities.
- The trial judge misdirected the jury in ruling that the defence of loss of control was not available due to the provisions of section 55(6)(c).
Smith and Roberson Business Law
ISBN: 978-0538473637
15th Edition
Authors: Richard A. Mann, Barry S. Roberts