An ordinary meeting of the Society was held on 4th March 2016.
The President was in the chair. The minutes were read and approved. He introduced the speaker, Nigel Pascoe Esq.,QC, who spoke to the title Mad or Bad? Murder and Diminished Responsibility.
Mr Pascoe said that had been a prosecuting barrister since 1988 and specialised in murder. He said that 2 cases defined the Law’s present approach to madness.
Until 1800 there was no defence of insanity in murder cases but the case of James Hadfield changed the law. James Hadfield thought he was commanded by God to take his own life to save the world but it must not be by his own hand. He therefore planned to assassinate the King and would as a consequence be hanged by others. On May 15th he fired a pistol at the King, just missing His Majesty. He was charged with treason and was allocated Thomas Erskine as his defending barrister. Erskine called a number of witnesses to his bizarre behaviour over a period of time and a psychiatrist who was of the opinion that Hadfield was insane. The judge stopped the trial and ordered the jury to find him not guilty on grounds of insanity.
Under the law at that time there was no legal way of detaining such a person who was unsafe to be free. Legislation was hastily passed that set out the condition that one found ‘not guilty on grounds of insanity’ was to be detained until ‘His Majesty’s Pleasure be Known’. Hadfield survived in the Bethlem Hospital until his death 41 years later.
The second case was of James McNaughton who murdered Sir Robert Peal’s secretary thinking him to be the PM. There was public anger. The House of Lords asked a panel of judges to review the defence of insanity. The principles expounded came to be known as the McNaughton Rules and are a standard test for criminal liability in relation to mentally disordered defendants.
In the Homicide Act of 1972 this was further updated. If there is an abnormality of mental function the defence have to prove that. The defending barrister will find a psychiatrist but the prosecution may also call one. In cases of paranoid schizophrenia both sides can agree but in others ‘a battle of the doctors’ can ensue.
Usually, Mr Pascoe calls the psychiatrist as the only witness for the defence in these cases and will choose one whom he thinks has the best presentational skills. When cross-examining the other expert witness he will try to find common ground between the two specialists before emphasising the differences for the jury. Diminished responsibility is controversial. Juries are especially not sympathetic to cases involving alcohol dependency or drugs and will rarely reduce the murder accusation to manslaughter when these are involved.
The President then thanked Mr Pascoe for his lecture. There being no other business the meeting was closed at 10.00pm