Curran, R v [2021] EWCA Crim 1999 (09 December 2021)

Curran, R v [2021] EWCA Crim 1999 (09 December 2021)

The court held that, in the absence of an admission of the actus reus or a sufficient evidential basis linking the applicant's mental abnormality to the killing, the fresh psychiatric evidence did not provide a ground for appeal. The applicant's refusal to provide a narrative account or admit the actus reus meant the partial defence of diminished responsibility could not be properly considered. The conviction for murder was therefore safe.

Citation
[2021] EWCA Crim 1999
Parties
Respondent: Regina; Applicant: Patrick Curran
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Murder, Manslaughter, Diminished Responsibility, Fresh Evidence, Mental Capacity, Appeals
Criminal Law Murder Manslaughter Diminished Responsibility Fresh Evidence Mental Capacity Appeals

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Patrick Curran

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh psychiatric evidence should be admitted on appeal to support a partial defence of diminished responsibility when the applicant denies the actus reus of murder.
  2. 2 Whether the conviction for murder is unsafe in light of new psychiatric evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, in the absence of an admission of the actus reus or a sufficient evidential basis linking the applicant's mental abnormality to the killing, the fresh psychiatric evidence did not provide a ground for appeal. The applicant's refusal to provide a narrative account or admit the actus reus meant the partial defence of diminished responsibility could not be properly considered. The conviction for murder was therefore safe.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Renewed application for extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction refused.
  • Fresh psychiatric evidence not admitted.