R v Jones Case Comment: Running diminished responsibility without an expert

Diminished responsibility is one of the partial defences available to those charged with murder. If a defendant is found to have had diminished responsibility during the commission of the offence, they are not acquitted but rather found guilty of voluntary manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility.

It is a highly complex defence that often requires significant psychiatric medical evidence. This is because, to run a successful defence for diminished responsibility, the onus is on the defendant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, the following:

If you do not understand what an abnormality of mental functioning is then do not worry – the difficulty in understanding the elements of this defence are indicative of its complexity. It is apparent, therefore, why a defendant would look to instruct a psychiatrist to assist them when raising diminished responsibility.

But can this partial defence be successfully achieved without the defendant calling a medical expert? This unusual scenario played out in Portsmouth Crown Court in the case of R v Jones heard before His Honour Judge Bowes KC.

Background to the case

On 9^th May 2024, Anarlyn Jones, formerly Bronwyn Jones at the time of the offence, brutally and violently attacked his mother, Anna Jones, with a small pruning knife leading to her subsequent death.

Postmortem examination conducted the following day concluded that Anna’s death was caused by overwhelming blood loss. The pathologist, Dr Basil Purdue, explained to the jury that the most significant injury was a large neck wound which partly severed the internal jugular vein.

Forensic analysis of the crime scene suggested that Anna Jones bled out extensively in the master bedroom of her flat. The location of the victim’s blood may have indicated that Anna Jones was stooped, crawling or close to the floor whilst she was bleeding.

In the immediate aftermath, the defendant phoned the emergency services. He repeated “I’ve killed my mum, I’ve killed my mum, I’ve killed my mum, I killed her” and claimed that “the demons made me do it”. Police body-worn camera footage played to the jury showed a highly distressed Anarlyn covered in blood asking to see ‘Rake’ – a demon character that is a derivative of the Slender Man.

The defendant claimed to have been highly intoxicated at the time of the killing, having drunk several cans of beer and a bottle of port prior to the incident. Evidence presented at trial also gave a brief insight into Anarlyn’s troubled upbringing and family background, and indicated that the defendant harboured great resentment towards his mother.

What did the Defence say?

The Defence did not call a psychiatrist to support their case but nonetheless claimed that when Anarlyn Jones killed his mother he was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning in the form of:

1. an Autism Spectrum Disorder;
2. an Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder; and
3. Alcohol Dependence.

The jury were invited by the defence to find that it was more likely than not that Anarlyn’s abnormality of mental functioning did substantially impair his ability to understand the nature of his conduct and/or to form a rational judgment and/or to exercise self-control for the following reasons:

1. his Alcohol Dependence was such that his consumption was involuntary; and/ or
2. his Autism Spectrum Disorder was so severe that there was no clear distinction between reality and unreality when he was immersed in his worlds; and/ or
3. his Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder was so severe that he struggled to control his behaviour.

The Defence stated that it was more likely than not that Anarlyn’s abnormality of mental functioning caused, or was a significant contributory factor in causing him to kill Anna Jones for the reasons set out above.

Therefore, in sum, the defence and the prosecution agreed on elements 1 and 2 of diminished responsibility but disagreed on elements 3 and 4.

What did the expert evidence conclude?

Whilst no defence expert was called, the prosecution instructed forensic psychiatrist Professor Grubin. His opinion in respect of Element 3 was that, although the abnormality of mental functioning was present at the time when Anarlyn Jones killed Anna Jones, it did not substantially impair the defendant’s ability to understand the nature of his conduct, form a rational judgment, and/or to exercise self-control. Instead, the overwhelming influence on Anarlyn’s behaviour at the time of the killing was his high level of voluntary intoxication and the resentment he held against his mother. In respect of Element 4, Professor Grubin’s opinion was that Anarlyn’s abnormality of mental functioning was not a significant contributory factor to the killing, although it did assist in understanding how the killing came about.

Analysis and outcome

The jury, therefore, were presented with the only expert witness in the case concluding that the defendant did not meet elements 3 and 4 of diminished responsibility, against evidence showing a very distressed defendant recounting a ‘rake’ character that had made him commit the murder.

Defence counsel, Kate Lumsdon KC, very skilfully reminded the jury in her closing submissions that the issue of diminished responsibility remained a matter for the jury, and whilst Professor Grubin was entitled to give his opinion, they “are not obliged to accept it”.

Anarlyn’s alcohol dependency was placed at the forefront of the defence’s submissions, with autism spectrum disorder and emotionally unstable personality disorder supplementing their defence if the jury did not accept Anarlyn’s involuntary intoxication.

With such a technical case before the jury, understanding the defendant’s alcohol dependency was undoubtedly the easiest abnormality of mental functioning for the jury to accept in the absence of a defence expert.

However, the gravitas of Professor Grubin’s evidence and the powerful submissions made by Sarah Jones KC for the Crown were compelling. The jury returned a guilty verdict for murder within one hour of deliberations.

The jury’s decision was perhaps made less complicated when His Honour Judge Bowes KC gave his legal directions. He directed that the jury must not attempt to make themselves “amateur psychiatrists” and bear in mind that the defence case put forward no expert evidence to contradict Professor Grubin.

Considering this case dispassionately, and applying the conclusions made by the only psychiatric expert in the case, it seems the only outcome a juror could sensibly come to is that of a conviction. Therefore, whilst it is possible to run diminished responsibility without an expert, it appears to be an almost overwhelming obstacle to overcome.

This case was successfully prosecuted by Sarah Jones KC, leading Ellie Fargin from Pump Court Chambers.

By Edward Armitage

Pupil Barrister