The Court of Appeal has allowed Paul Henry’s appeal against a jury verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity and ordered a retrial, finding that the jury had not received clear directions on the burden and standard of proof.
Henry had been tried for murdering his mother on 17 September 2011. At trial, the prosecution argued for a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, while the defence sought a verdict of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. The jury returned the insanity verdict on 1 May 2014, after which Henry was committed to the Central Mental Hospital.
The appeal concerned the trial judge’s direction that Henry had to establish insanity on the balance of probabilities. The Court of Appeal held that where the prosecution contends for an insanity verdict and the defence contends for diminished responsibility, each side bears the burden of establishing its proposed verdict on the balance of probabilities. It said this conclusion applied specifically to cases in which the prosecution seeks one of those alternative verdicts and the defence seeks the other.
The court also considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal based on alleged misdirection, given the statutory provisions for appeals following an insanity verdict. It concluded that those provisions did not exclude its broader appellate jurisdiction and that it could intervene for misdirection and order a retrial if necessary.
The court acknowledged the argument that the difference between the direction given and the direction required might not justify intervention. It was not persuaded. It said the competing expert opinions made clear jury guidance especially important, and that confusion had entered the case. Because the choice between the two verdicts had significant practical consequences for Henry, the court allowed the appeal and ordered a retrial so a jury could decide the issue with proper directions.
The Court of Appeal did not decide which verdict should be returned at retrial. Its order followed from the misdirection; the judgment did not replace the jury’s verdict with a finding of manslaughter or murder.