*R v Golds

Criminal law – Manslaughter. The defendant killed his wife, but contended that he was guilty of manslaughter by reason of his diminished responsibility. He was convicted of murder and appealed against conviction. Dismissing his appeal, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the judge had not erred in refusing to allow to go before the jury the evidence of a medical expert in a voir dire that the defendant ought not to give evidence. Nor had he erred in the way he dealt with certain bad character evidence in his summing up. Finally, the judge had not erred in refusing to give the jury any directions as to the meaning of the word 'substantial' within s 2(1)(b) of the Homicide Act 1957.

Category: