header-logo header-logo

NLJ this week: Time to look again at the insanity defence?

17 February 2023
Issue: 8013 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
111188
The insanity defence and legal burdens of proof come under the scrutiny of Simon Parsons, associate lecturer at Bath Spa University, in this week’s NLJ.

The defence of insanity makes frequent appearances in crime fiction and film. It is also the only common law exception to the Woolmington v DPP thread on presumption of innocence, from the famous case at [1935] AC 462.

Parsons makes the case for extending the thread, as ‘it seems morally wrong to impose a legal burden of proof on accused persons in respect of both limbs where they have an extremely limited grasp of reality’.

See the full article here.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll