Meanza, R. v

Meanza, R. v

The defence of loss of control was properly withdrawn from the jury as the appellant's grievances were not justifiable and a person with normal tolerance would not have reacted similarly. The minimum term imposed was manifestly excessive due to undue emphasis on dangerousness and insufficient consideration of psychiatric history; it should be reduced to 21 years less time spent on remand.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Michael Dean Meanza
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction refused; appeal against sentence allowed in part
Legal Topics
Murder, Diminished Responsibility, Loss of Control, Sentencing

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

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Michael Dean Meanza

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

  1. 1 Whether the defence of loss of control should have been left to the jury
  2. 2 Whether the minimum term imposed for life imprisonment was manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The defence of loss of control was properly withdrawn from the jury as the appellant's grievances were not justifiable and a person with normal tolerance would not have reacted similarly. The minimum term imposed was manifestly excessive due to undue emphasis on dangerousness and insufficient consideration of psychiatric history; it should be reduced to 21 years less time spent on remand.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction refused; appeal against sentence allowed in part

Orders

  • Minimum term reduced to 21 years less time spent on remand (217 days)