Reynolds, R v

Fresh psychiatric evidence may be received under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 where it is credible and could have had a significant effect at trial. A murder conviction is unsafe where such evidence makes it highly likely that the jury would have found diminished responsibility and returned a verdict of manslaughter.

In sentencing for manslaughter, a custodial life sentence may be appropriate where an offender has an untreatable psychopathic mental abnormality, poses a serious public risk, and the evidence does not justify a hospital disposal. A speculative possibility of a further assessment does not justify adjournment without evidence that it may produce a viable alternative disposal.

In 1987, when aged 17, the appellant was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of murdering his employer and was ordered to be detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure. The trial judge had refused leave to call medical evidence about his unusual personality on the issue of intent. An earlier appeal against conviction was dismissed in 1988.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case after later psychiatric and psychological reports diagnosed Asperger’s Syndrome from birth. The reports indicated that the condition had not been widely recognised at the time of trial and could substantially have diminished the appellant’s responsibility for the killing under section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957.

The central issues were whether the reports should be admitted as fresh evidence, whether the murder conviction was unsafe, and the proper disposal after any substituted verdict.

1. Appeal allowed. The court received the later medical reports as fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. They were credible and could have had a significant effect at trial.
2. The evidence established that the appellant had Asperger’s Syndrome at the time of the killing. The court accepted the medical conclusion that, had the condition been recognised and the evidence called, it was highly likely that the jury would have found that his conduct was significantly attributable to the disorder and that an abnormality of mind had substantially impaired his responsibility. The murder conviction was therefore unsafe. It was quashed and a verdict of manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility was substituted.
3. The court held that a hospital disposal was not justified. The appellant’s mental abnormality was psychopathic in nature, there was no evidence that it could be ameliorated by treatment, and the medical evidence established a serious risk to the public. A custodial life sentence was therefore the only appropriate disposal.
4. The proposed adjournment to explore a possible further assessment was refused. It rested on a tenuous possibility, with no evidence that it would yield a practicable treatment option or hospital placement. The appellant did not require the security necessary for admission to a special hospital.
5. The court stated that the appropriate determinate equivalent would not have exceeded 12 years, and fixed six years as the period before consideration by the Parole Board. It also indicated that the relevant medical reports should be collated and made available to those taking future decisions about the appellant.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission under section 69 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the court allowed the appeal in [2004] EWCA Crim 1834, quashed the murder conviction, substituted manslaughter, and imposed life imprisonment.
• Court of Appeal: The appellant’s earlier appeal against conviction was dismissed on 18 October 1988.
• Central Criminal Court: On 5 November 1987, the appellant was convicted of murder and ordered to be detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure.