R v Golds (Appellant)

The case of R v Golds involved an appeal by the appellant, Mark Golds, who was convicted of murder but sought to establish the partial defence of diminished responsibility to reduce his conviction to manslaughter. The central issue before the court was the interpretation of the statutory term "substantially impaired" in section 2(1)(b) of the Homicide Act 1957, as amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The appellant argued that the trial judge should have directed the jury on the meaning of "substantially impaired" and that the correct interpretation was any impairment beyond the merely trivial. The Court of Appeal certified two questions on this point for resolution by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court examined the historical context and legal authorities on the meaning of "substantially impaired" in the context of diminished responsibility. It concluded that the term should be understood in the sense of an impairment of consequence or weight, rather than merely any impairment beyond the trivial. This interpretation aligns with the principle that diminished responsibility should only reduce a murder conviction to manslaughter where there is a significant, not merely trivial, impairment of the defendant's mental abilities. The court emphasized that while the term "substantially" is an ordinary English word, it carries a specific meaning in this statutory context, which should be conveyed to the jury without unnecessary elaboration. The court also noted that while the term should not be re-defined for the jury, judges may use illustrative phrases to clarify the sense in which it is used, so long as they ensure the jury understands that the impairment must be more than trivial but not necessarily total.

In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed that the trial judge was not required to provide additional direction on the meaning of "substantially impaired" unless specific circumstances in the case suggested a risk of misunderstanding. The court underscored the importance of expert psychiatric evidence in assessing the level of impairment and the role of the jury in determining whether the impairment was substantial based on all the evidence presented. The court also highlighted the Crown's responsibility to assess and challenge expert evidence appropriately and the judge's role in ensuring that any challenge is rationally based and properly explained to the jury.