Neaven, R. v [2006] EWCA Crim 955 (15 May 2006)

Neaven, R. v [2006] EWCA Crim 955 (15 May 2006)

The conviction for murder is unsafe because new, undisputed psychiatric evidence shows the appellant was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the offence, substantially impairing his responsibility. This evidence was unknown to the appellant and his legal team at trial, and the interests of justice require its admission. The conviction for murder is quashed and a verdict of manslaughter substituted.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Crim 955
Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant/defendant: Damian James Neaven
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction From Crown Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; murder conviction quashed; manslaughter verdict substituted; hospital and restriction orders imposed.
Legal Topics
Murder, Diminished Responsibility, Fresh Evidence, Schizophrenia, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Mental Health Law Murder Diminished Responsibility Fresh Evidence Schizophrenia Appeal Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Damian James Neaven

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction From Crown Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence of schizophrenia should be admitted on appeal under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968
  2. 2 Whether the conviction for murder is unsafe due to new evidence of diminished responsibility
  3. 3 Whether a verdict of manslaughter should be substituted for murder

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction for murder is unsafe because new, undisputed psychiatric evidence shows the appellant was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the offence, substantially impairing his responsibility. This evidence was unknown to the appellant and his legal team at trial, and the interests of justice require its admission. The conviction for murder is quashed and a verdict of manslaughter substituted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; murder conviction quashed; manslaughter verdict substituted; hospital and restriction orders imposed.

Orders

  • Conviction for murder quashed
  • Verdict of manslaughter substituted