Goodwin, R v

Goodwin, R v

The trial judge was correct not to leave the defence of loss of control to the jury because, even if there was sufficient evidence of loss of control and a qualifying trigger, there was insufficient evidence that a person with normal tolerance and self-restraint might have reacted in the same or similar way as the appellant. The conviction for murder is safe.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Anthony Gerard Goodwin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Murder, Loss of Control Defence, Self Defence, Manslaughter, Coroners and Justice Act 2009
Criminal Law Murder Loss of Control Defence Self Defence Manslaughter Coroners and Justice Act 2009

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Anthony Gerard Goodwin

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in failing to leave the partial defence of loss of control to the jury under section 54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was correct not to leave the defence of loss of control to the jury because, even if there was sufficient evidence of loss of control and a qualifying trigger, there was insufficient evidence that a person with normal tolerance and self-restraint might have reacted in the same or similar way as the appellant. The conviction for murder is safe.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction for murder upheld
  • No retrial or resentencing ordered