The Queen v. Jeremiah Michael Savage
Read the full judgment text of CACC 260/1986 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. In this application for leave to appeal leave was obtained to call further evidence. Upon the application for leave to call further evidence one of the arguments advanced – and that which persuaded the court somewhat reluctantly to give leave – was that the Appellant may have been suffering from a mental state called paradoxical rage, the substance of which for our purposes is that the patient may act in a manner over which he has no control. It was thus suggested not that it was enough to sh
|
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1986, No. 260 BETWEEN THE QUEEN And JEREMIAH MICHAEL SAVAGE __________________ Coram: Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P., Fuad, J.A. & Mayo, J. Date of Hearing: 23rd February 1987 Date of Judgment: 23rd February 1987 __________________ JUDGMENT __________________ Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P.: 1. In this application for leave to appeal leave was obtained to call further evidence. Upon the application for leave to call further evidence one of the arguments advanced – and that which persuaded the court somewhat reluctantly to give leave – was that the Appellant may have been suffering from a mental state called paradoxical rage, the substance of which for our purposes is that the patient may act in a manner over which he has no control. It was thus suggested not that it was enough to show that he had a toxic substance in his blood which he did not intend to have but that, in the absence of the toxic substance, he would not have committed an assault at all. Today Mr. Sedgwick has conceded that any evidence which can be called would be inconsistent with a conclusion that the Appellant was in a paradoxical rage at the time of this assault – it being now conceded that the jury’s verdict necessarily involves a finding that the Appellant did assault the Deceased. Nevertheless it is still sought to call further evidence for the purpose of establishing what is said to be an alternative defence, which was referred to in para. 11(2) of Professor Lader’s report of 12th August 1986 and which is conceded to be a defence “akin to” that of killing in a paradoxical rage. We think there is no real distinction in law between the two alleged defences, because in each case the essence of the defence is that he had no control over his actions rather than that he had no intent to do any harm. In the light of the concession which has been made, it would not now be right for us to hear any further evidence. Sedgwick, Q.C. & Adams for Appellant. Cogney and Miss Lee for Respondent. |