![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] |
![]() |
||||||||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Martin v R [2001] EWCA Crim 2245 (30 October 2001) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2001/2245.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Crim 2245, [2002] 2 WLR 1, [2002] 1 Cr App R 27, [2002] 1 Cr App Rep 27, [2003] QB 1 |
[New search] [Printable version] [Buy ICLR report: [2003] QB 1] [Buy ICLR report: [2002] 2 WLR 1] [Help]
Case No: 00/2560/51
Citation Number [2001] EWCA Crim 2245
IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM NORWICH CROWN
COURT
(MR
JUSTICE OWEN)
Royal
Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 30 October 2001
B e f o r e :
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND
AND WALES
and
THE HON. MR
JUSTICE WRIGHT
THE HON. MR JUSTICE GRIGSON
Anthony Edward Martin |
Appellant | |
- v - |
||
R |
Respondent |
Mr Michael Wolkind QC and Mr Michael
Edmonds
(instructed by Saunders & Co. London on behalf of the
appellant)
Miss Rosamund Horwood Smart QC and Mr Ian James
(instructed by CPS on behalf of the respondent)
THE LAW RELATING TO SELF-DEFENCE
THE BACKGROUND TO THE CHARGES
THE EVENTS OF 20 AUGUST
THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE
i)Barras' back wound 3 to 4.1 metres (9.75 to 13.5 feet)ii)Barras' main leg injury 4 to 5.4 metres (13 to 17.7 feet)
iii)Fearon's main leg injury 3.8 to 5.3 metres (12.5 to 17.4 feet)
"Mr Martin was standing just inside the breakfast room, close to the opening to the hall, and Mr Fearon shone the torch into his face. Mr Martin aimed and fired the shotgun below the torch and the discharge struck Mr Barras in the back. Mr Fearon and Mr Barras moved towards the window side of the room from the position close to the opening the hall and the breakfast room. Mr Martin fired a further two shots aiming in the downward direction. The first of the shots struck Mr Fearon causing a major wound to his left leg. The dispersed shot from this wound struck Mr Barras on the inner aspect of his right thigh and the wall beneath the window. The second struck Mr Barras in the outer aspect of his right leg, and the pellets ricocheting from the wound struck Mr Fearon in the right thigh and also the door to the left of the window. In the above scenario it would not have been possible for Mr Martin to have caused the observed injuries and damage if he had fired the gun from a position on the stairs."
Dr Arnold agreed that this scenario and the positions suggested would accord with the injuries and the damage. It was further put to him that it was difficult to say that the shots had come from the stairs and he responded:
"Well, two couldn't have been, and you have three cartridge cases close together, with the implication being that they were fired close together."
THE SUMMING-UP
THE APPEAL
GROUNDS 1 AND 2
"The court was rightly concerned to emphasise that where counsel had made decisions in good faith after proper consideration of the competing arguments and where appropriate after due discussion with his client such decisions could not possibly be said to render a subsequent verdict unsafe or unsatisfactory .... Conversely and, we stress, exceptionally where it is show that the decision was taken either in defiance of or without proper instructions, or when all the promptings of reason and good sense pointed the other way, it may be open to an appellate court to set aside the verdict by reason of the terms of section 2 (1)(a) of the Act."
"The court could not countenance a case in which the defendant was serving a prison sentence for no other reason than a mistake on counsel's part, but equally, where counsel's judgment had been reasonable, there was a strong public interest that the legal process should not be indefinitely prolonged on the ground, for example that a defendant's case advanced within a different framework might have stood a greater chance of success."
"For present purposes, it seems to this court that whatever the precise language which is used to describe it, Mr Cowan is correct in saying that it is only significant fault on the part of trial counsel, or indeed solicitors, which confound a challenge to the safety of a jury's verdict. It may be, although we express no final and concluded view on this aspect of the case, that it is a proper and convenient approach a Wednesbury test to the decision which is contained, i.e. was it one that no reasonable counsel or solicitor could have reached?"
PSYCHIATRIC ISSUES
a)while, Mr Martin would be regarded by many people as eccentric and a loner he did not suffer from a personality disorder.
b)Mr Martin described occasional periods of depression in the past, one of which may have been severe enough to warrant a psychiatric diagnosis at the time, but after such a long period with no contemporaneous accounts of the episode it was impossible to be certain. If he was depressed then, he recovered without treatment and there was no suggestion that he was depressed at the time of the alleged offence.
c)Mr Martin was not suffering from any form of mental disorder nor is there anything to suggest that he was suffering from mental disorder at the time of the alleged offence.
d)the feelings which he describes when he realised that there were people in the house are consistent with severe anxiety and may be considered a normal reaction to grossly abnormal circumstances.
e)in the absence of any form of psychiatric disorder Mr Martin did not have a medical defence to the charges he faced. He was fit to plead and stand trial according to the usual criteria.
a)Taking into account Mr Martin's mental characteristics at the time of the killing, Mr Martin would have perceived a much greater danger to his physical safety than the average person. Dr Joseph considered that Mr Martin honestly thought that he was in an extremely perilous situation and that he needed to take immediate defensive action to counter the attack he was under.
b)It is well recognised that at times of extreme emotional arousal, similar to that described by Mr Martin prior to the killing, memory can be impaired. Mr Martin was suffering from depression as well as being in a state of extreme emotional arousal at the time of the killing. He therefore had those characteristics which are most closely associated with amnesia. Dr Joseph, because of this, believed Mr Martin may have suffered from a genuine period of amnesia when he was standing on the stairs and he may have walked further down the stairs without being aware of doing so.
a)to establish that the breaking into his house would be perceived by Mr Martin as being a greater threat to his safety then it would in the case of a normal person. If the jury accepted the expert evidence as to this, this would have made the jury more willing to accept Mr Martin's evidence. It could also have influenced the jury's decision as to whether Mr Martin was acting reasonably in firing the gun as he did;
b)to establish that Mr Martin may have suffered from amnesia as to what happened and this could have explained why his evidence was not accurate;
c)to establish that Mr Martin at the time when he fired the shot which was to prove fatal was suffering from diminished responsibility.
"The first question on both these issues is whether the psychiatrist's opinion was relevant. A man's personality and mental make-up do have a bearing upon his conduct. A quick-tempered man will react more aggressively to an unpleasing situation than a placid one. Anyone having a florid imagination or a tendency to exaggerate is less likely to be a reliable witness than one who is precise and careful. These are matters of ordinary human experience. Opinions from knowledgeable persons about a man's personality and make-up play a part in many human judgments. In our judgment, the psychiatrist's opinion was relevant. Relevance does not result in the evidence being admissible: it is a condition precedent to admissibility. Our law excludes evidence of many matters which in life outside the Courts sensible people take into consideration when making decisions. Two broad heads of exclusion are hearsay and opinion .... the psychiatrist's report contained a lot of hearsay which is inadmissible. A ruling on this ground, however would merely have trimmed the psychiatrist's evidence: it would not have excluded it altogether. Was it inadmissible because of the rules relating to opinion evidence.... An expert's opinion is admissible to furnish the Court with scientific information which is likely to be outside the experience and knowledge of a judge and jury. If on the proven facts a judge or jury can form their own conclusions without help, then the opinion of an expert is unnecessary. In such a case, if it is given dressed up in scientific jargon, it may make judgment more difficult. The fact that an expert witness has impressive scientific qualifications does not by that fact alone make his opinion on matters of human nature and behaviour within the limits of normality any more helpful than does that of the jurors themselves; but there is a danger they may think it does."
"I believe he honestly thought that he was in an extremely perilous situation and that he needed to take immediate defensive action to counter the attack he was under."
SENTENCE
MR WOLKIND: The appeal having substantially succeeded, I ask for costs from central funds. The defence have been privately funded throughout.
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: Thank you. Any other application?
MR WOLKIND: My Lord, yes. One other matter I raise today, my birthday.
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: Many happy returns!
MR WOLKIND: Thank you very much. I have drafted a point for consideration by the House of Lords. At this stage I have an application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. The court will understand that we continue to fight, and Mr Martin will seek elsewhere to quash his convictions. But we invite my Lords to certify that the point I have drafted is one of general public importance, and, not only to certify it, but we also invite this court to grant leave to appeal. This is a point, in my submission, that should be considered and decided.
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: Mr Wolkind, you have kindly provided us with a copy you want certifying. We are inclined to think that, as drawn, it is too wide. Basing ourselves on your draft, would it be sufficient for your purposes if we certified:
"Whether expert psychiatric evidence is admissible on the issue of a defendant's perception of the danger he faced?"
MR WOLKIND: My Lord, yes.
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: We will hear from Miss Horwood-Smart on both those submissions.
MISS HORWOOD-SMART: My Lord, having heard your words, we have no observations.
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: And about costs?
MISS HORWOOD-SMART: Central funds, my Lord, I believe.
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: Thank you very much. Mr Wolkind, as far as costs are concerned, we grant your application. We certify the point, but we do not give leave. You will have to ask their Lordships for leave.