Tom Little, being led by David Perry QC, is appearing today for the Prosecution in front of a seven justice constitution of the Supreme Court. The appellant was convicted of murdering his partner and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Before trial, he pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility but the plea was not accepted by the prosecution. The appellant had a history of mental illness and at trial two forensic psychiatrists and one forensic psychologist were called by the defence to give evidence in support of the partial defence of diminished responsibility.
The judge directed the jury on the partial defence of diminished responsibility, but not on the meaning of the word “substantial” in the statute. The jury convicted the appellant of murder. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. The Supreme Court will consider (a) what the word substantial means in this context and (b) whether a Judge should direct the jury on that meaning. Given the word ‘substantial’ features in similar statutory provisions in many common law jurisdictions this case will have wide ramifications across the world.
This week Thomas Yarrow revisits the vexed question of the use of artificial intelligence in legal research – and our intrepid reporter finds that it’s not all it’s cracked up to be. In fact the experience led him to such depths of despair that he…
This week Ben Rodgers relays two tales from the coalface, both relating to applications to resile from admissions. Readers will be interested to know that in both cases the court applied the balance of prejudice test with the result that the defendants’ applications were refused….
This week Conor Kennedy considers a novel point of construction in relation to challenging service of claim forms; the headline is that defendants must take steps to mount a jurisdictional challenge within the tight deadlines provided for in the CPR, but Conor asks whether this…
Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR