R v Reynolds
1989 · Crim LR 220
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- Reynolds was charged with murder. He wanted a psychiatrist to say that he could not distinguish reality from fantasy. There was no evidence that he was mentally ill, or that he was in a fantasy, at the time of the killing. The judge refused to admit the opinion.
- Issue
- May psychiatric evidence be called to deny where there is no mental illness?
- Held
- No. The jury could use their own experience. The opinion would have taken over the question they were there to decide.
- Principle
- Expert evidence of mental state is for a condition outside lay experience. A bare attack on intention is not such a condition.
- Why it matters
- Chard is the same point, earlier, and on a prison doctor. Smith (Stanley) is the contrast: during sleep does need an expert.
Words and Latin in this note
- Automatism
- An act done by the muscles without control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex, or a blackout. An external cause can be a complete defence. An internal cause, such as epilepsy, is treated as insanity. Open the note.
- Mens rea
- The mental element in the definition of a crime. It is not one standard. Intention is the highest form. Recklessness is below it. Gross negligence sits at the bottom. The definition of the particular crime decides which is required. Open the note.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.