Sharp, R v

Sharp, R v

The appeal is dismissed because the defence of diminished responsibility was available at trial and not pursued due to the appellant's own decision, not due to mental illness. The psychiatric evidence is disputed and does not meet the threshold for exceptional circumstances required to admit a new defence on appeal.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Peter Sharp
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Murder, Diminished Responsibility, Fresh Evidence, Psychiatric Evidence, Drug Effects
Criminal Law Murder Diminished Responsibility Fresh Evidence Psychiatric Evidence Drug Effects

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Peter Sharp

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence of diminished responsibility should be admitted on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the effects of Halcion and psychiatric disorders could substantially impair the appellant's responsibility
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's decision not to run diminished responsibility at trial was affected by mental illness

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the defence of diminished responsibility was available at trial and not pursued due to the appellant's own decision, not due to mental illness. The psychiatric evidence is disputed and does not meet the threshold for exceptional circumstances required to admit a new defence on appeal.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed