Jackson v R.

Jackson v R.

The fresh psychiatric evidence does not provide a reason for doubting the jury’s conclusion that the appellant’s mental responsibility for the killing was not substantially impaired; the conviction is not unsafe.

Parties
Appellant: Bruce Lee Jackson; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Diminished Responsibility, Fresh Evidence, Unsafe Conviction, Psychiatric Evidence, Extension of Time
Criminal Law Diminished Responsibility Fresh Evidence Unsafe Conviction Psychiatric Evidence Extension of Time

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruce Lee Jackson

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh psychiatric evidence renders the conviction for murder unsafe
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's mental responsibility was substantially impaired at the time of the offence
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's abnormality of mind was causally linked to the killing

Ratio Decidendi

The fresh psychiatric evidence does not provide a reason for doubting the jury’s conclusion that the appellant’s mental responsibility for the killing was not substantially impaired; the conviction is not unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Extension of time granted