The question of whether an abnormality of mind substantially impaired the accused's mental responsibility for the act is a value judgment by the jury representing the community, not a finding of medical fact. The jury must approach this task in a broad commonsense way.
Spigelman CJ, Newman J, Bell AJ
A jury may reject the defence of diminished responsibility notwithstanding unanimous psychiatric evidence supporting it, where the factual assumptions underlying the expert opinions are contradicted by other evidence, the experts qualify their opinions under cross-examination, and other professional evidence found no psychiatric abnormality. The question of substantial impairment is a value judgment about culpability for the jury, not a medical finding.
No headnote yet — we'll generate the full structured AI headnote for you.
Generate the headnoteFree trial · no card required
Legal principles extracted from this case
Cases considered by REGINA v MAJDALAWI
Referred to (1)
Cases that have considered REGINA v MAJDALAWI
Judicial Consideration (Chronological)