Evening Post. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1923. MURDER TRIAL VERDICTS

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 125, 23 November 1923, Page 6

Evening Post. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1923. MURDER TRIAL VERDICTS

Aii interesting forecast of the recommendations of the Lord Chancellor's Committee on the defence of insanity in criminal cases was supplied on the authority of the' " Daily Express" yesterday. The first of these recommendations is that juries shall be empowered to return a verdict, " Not guilty, 'on the ground of insanity," instead of the old form, "Guilty, but insane." The change is doubtless logical, though there seems to be no reason for supposing that it will have any substantial effect on the administration of justice. The proposed change is logical, because, if a man commits a murder while he is insane, we regard him not as a criminal whose mental weakness entitles him from exemption from the normal consequences of crime, but as one whose mental weakness prevents our regarding him as a criminal at all. He did the deed, but he did it without knowing what he was doing, or, at any rate, without, the guilty intent which, in all those cases where the defence of insanity creates the greatest difficulty, is of the essence of the crime. The term " criminal lunatic" may, indeed, be said to be a contradiction in terms. The verdict, "Guilty, but insane," suffers from the same defect. "Not guilty, but insane," is the purport of the new verdict, and this would have made a neater formula.

Though, as we have suggested, the change may be. of no great practical value, and is dictated by logic and consistency rather than by any practical need, it is interesting to note that the form of verdict now proposed by this committee of experts was actually used by a jury more than forty years ago. On the 2nd March, 1882, a lunatic named Roderick Maclean fired, a pistol at Queen Victoria, and the jury which tried the case brought in a verdict of " Not guilty, on the ground of insanity." An interesting account of the sequel was given by a correspondent of " The Times" when the True case was under discussion in June 1922:

As I understand the history of the matter, Her Majesty, "having herself seen the act," demurred under the cirouxnstancea to the expression " not guilty," and the legal authorities at the time (presumably Lord Justice Caleridge and Baron Huddleston) appear to have given some assurance that the apparent incongruity would be . put to . rights. Hence I take it that next year (1883) the wording of the verdict in these cases was declared in the following' terms by Act ol Parliament:—" Guilty of the aot charged against him, but insane, so as not to bo responsible according to law, at, the time when the not wa» done." If the Court and jury ca n say this, what more is needed?

It would be pleasant to think that the wisdom of the jury, 'after being overruled by the intervention of the Queen, her legal, authorities, and the Legislature, has been vinaisafessl afts* lapse ci fevty !■«**» hv th* Lasfi Oh«Kello.ni

Committee.- But the fact seems to be that the verdict merely followed what Was until 18g3 the es^i;,. iished form. The recommendation oi the Chancellor's Committee is, therefore, on this point merely to revert to the old practice. The crucial point of the Committee s labours is, however, covered by the second of its recommendations. It is a point which has long been the subject of keen controversy, nor is there any reason to suppose that the Committee's report will contain the last word on the subject.

It will also be recommended, says our C? W(?,message, that full legal recognition snouid b e given to the mental condition recognised in the medical profession as uncontrollable impulse." Such a plea, II .accepted by the jury, would in the opinion of the Committee justify a verdict of not guilty, on the ground of in-

The personnel of the Lord Chancellor's Committee is unknown to us, but it is safe to assume that the experts of which it is composed are not confined to the medical profession. "The head and first representative of the law in England " may be relied on to have taken care that the profession from which he sprang received a liberal, if not a preponderating, representation on this important Committee. Yet the result of its deliberations is that a controversy which has been carried on between the medical profession on the one side and the Courts and the lawyers on the other, and during its latest phase wrfch much energy and feeling, has now been decided in favour of the former. If the Committee's recommendation is adopted,' the Judges who have lately proclaimed their refusal to take their orders from Harley Street will have to change their tune.

The limits of this article forbid our entering now into the merits of an intricate and difficult controversy, and we must content ourselves with a brief statement of the main point at issue. In 1843, the House of Lords laid down the 'v conditions of a valid plea of insanity to a criminal charge in a series of propositions known as the " Rules in M'Naughton's Case." After eighty years these rules still stand, and the substance of the most important of them is contained in the following clause of our Crimes Act:—

■No person shall be convicted of an offence by reason of an act done or omitted by him when labouring under natural imbecility or disease of the mind to such an extent as to render such person incapable of. understanding the nature and quality of the act or omission and of knowing that such act or omission was wrong.

The medical profession has long contended that this test of.irresponsibility for crime is far too narrow. Provision, they say, should be made for " moral insanity" as well as mental insanity, and for defects of will which may be just as incapacitating as defects of understanding. The diagnosis of "the mental condition recognised in the medical profession as uncontrollable impulse " may seem a perilous inquiry for a jury to undertake, but the Lord Chancellor's Committee is satisfied that the charge would be in the interests of -justice.