R v BWP

R v BWP

The trial judge's ruling to uphold the submission of no case to answer was unreasonable and involved an error of principle. There was a genuine professional disagreement among the psychiatric experts, and there was other evidence upon which a jury could properly conclude that the respondent was not acting in a state of automatism. The judge subsumed her views for those of the jury and failed to leave the issue for the jury's determination. The ruling is reversed and a fresh trial is ordered.

Parties
Applicant Crown: Rex; Respondent Defendant: B W P
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Terminating Ruling (no Case to Answer) After Close of Prosecution Case at Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; ruling of no case to answer reversed; fresh trial ordered
Legal Topics
Murder, Automatism, Diminished Responsibility, Appeal Against Terminating Ruling
Criminal Law Murder Automatism Diminished Responsibility Appeal Against Terminating Ruling

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Applicant Crown

B W P

Respondent Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Terminating Ruling (no Case to Answer) After Close of Prosecution Case at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in granting a submission of no case to answer on the charge of murder where the defence of non-insane automatism was raised
  2. 2 Whether the psychiatric evidence was such that the case should have been withdrawn from the jury
  3. 3 Whether there was other evidence upon which the jury could conclude the respondent was not acting in a state of automatism

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's ruling to uphold the submission of no case to answer was unreasonable and involved an error of principle. There was a genuine professional disagreement among the psychiatric experts, and there was other evidence upon which a jury could properly conclude that the respondent was not acting in a state of automatism. The judge subsumed her views for those of the jury and failed to leave the issue for the jury's determination. The ruling is reversed and a fresh trial is ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; ruling of no case to answer reversed; fresh trial ordered

Orders

  • Jury discharged
  • Fresh trial to take place in the Crown Court on the count of murder