BWP, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 113 (09 February 2024)

BWP, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 113 (09 February 2024)

The trial judge erred in law and principle by withdrawing the case from the jury on the basis of the psychiatric evidence alone, failing to recognise that there was a genuine professional disagreement among the experts and that other evidence existed which could allow a properly directed jury to reject the defence of automatism. The ruling was not reasonable, and the case should proceed to a retrial.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Crim 113
Parties
Applicant: Rex (The Crown); Respondent/defendant: B W P
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Terminating Ruling (no Case to Answer) After Close of Prosecution Case at Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; ruling of no case to answer reversed; jury discharged; retrial ordered.
Legal Topics
Automatism, Murder, Diminished Responsibility, Expert Evidence, Burden of Proof, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Automatism Murder Diminished Responsibility Expert Evidence Burden of Proof 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex (The Crown)

Applicant

B W P

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Terminating Ruling (no Case to Answer) After Close of Prosecution Case at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in acceding to a submission of no case to answer on a charge of murder where the defence of non-insane automatism was raised and supported by psychiatric evidence
  2. 2 Whether the psychiatric evidence was such that the case should have been withdrawn from the jury
  3. 3 Whether there was other evidence upon which a jury could properly convict

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in law and principle by withdrawing the case from the jury on the basis of the psychiatric evidence alone, failing to recognise that there was a genuine professional disagreement among the experts and that other evidence existed which could allow a properly directed jury to reject the defence of automatism. The ruling was not reasonable, and the case should proceed to a retrial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; ruling of no case to answer reversed; jury discharged; retrial ordered.

Orders

  • Discharge the jury.
  • Order a fresh trial in the Crown Court on the count of murder.