Johnson, R. v [2007] EWCA Crim 1978 (09 July 2007)

Johnson, R. v [2007] EWCA Crim 1978 (09 July 2007)

The court held that under current English law, as established in R v Windle, the term 'wrong' in the M'Naghten Rules means legally wrong, not morally wrong. Since the appellant knew his act was against the law, he was not entitled to a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Crim 1978
Parties
Appellant: Dean Johnson; Respondent: Regina (The Crown)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Insanity Defence, M'naghten Rules, Wounding With Intent, Hospital Orders
Criminal Law Mental Health Law Insanity Defence M'naghten Rules Wounding With Intent Hospital Orders

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dean Johnson

Appellant

Regina (The Crown)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was entitled to a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity under the M'Naghten Rules where he knew his act was legally wrong but believed it was morally justified

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that under current English law, as established in R v Windle, the term 'wrong' in the M'Naghten Rules means legally wrong, not morally wrong. Since the appellant knew his act was against the law, he was not entitled to a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed
  • Appellant invited to consider formulating a question of public importance for possible certification to the House of Lords within 14 days