Hill v R.

Hill v R.

The appellant's new evidence of childhood sexual abuse and flashback is not capable of belief and there is no reasonable explanation for failing to advance it at trial; the medical evidence does not establish diminished responsibility as the organic brain injury, even if present, does not substantially reduce responsibility for the killing, especially when voluntary alcohol consumption is involved.

Parties
Appellant: Ronald Hill; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed; application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Murder, Provocation, Diminished Responsibility, Fresh Evidence, Appeals
Criminal Law Murder Provocation Diminished Responsibility Fresh Evidence 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Hill

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence of childhood sexual abuse and flashback should be admitted to support a defence of provocation
  2. 2 Whether fresh medical evidence supports a defence of diminished responsibility

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's new evidence of childhood sexual abuse and flashback is not capable of belief and there is no reasonable explanation for failing to advance it at trial; the medical evidence does not establish diminished responsibility as the organic brain injury, even if present, does not substantially reduce responsibility for the killing, especially when voluntary alcohol consumption is involved.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; application for leave to appeal refused