Derek Chiswick

Shoplifting, depression and an unusual intracranial lesion (a case report).

A case is reported of shoplifting occurring in a depressive illness of suicidal intensity. In addition, there was present an unusually large intracranial lesion, the differential diagnosis of which is discussed, although its exact nature remains uncertain.

Psychiatric testimony in Britain: Remembering your lines and keeping to the script

The legal avenues open to defendants in British courts by which psychiatric factors may provide a defence to a criminal charge are limited in number and narrow in scope. Some have been determined by developments of the common law, others by judicial rulings and case law, and yet others by statutory law: none of the defences have been formulated with any significant reference to contemporary psychiatric practice. This is not surprising because most are very much older than the medical science of psychiatry, and the remainder have undergone no revision in recent years. By contrast, the range of psychiatric options available to the court in its disposal of offenders who plead (or are found) guilty has expanded and changed in recent years. These changes have reflected modern developments in psychiatric practice. However, it is psychiatric evidence as a defence to a criminal charge that is more likely to cause dispute in court and that periodically arouses public concern. We should not forget, though, that the majority of offenders receiving psychiatric disposals in British courts do so after guilt has been determined. This paper is concerned with three important psychiatric defences and examines their psychiatric foundations. The law makes provision for dealing with defendants who do not understand that they are charged with a criminal offence and who are unable to give instructions for their defence. Procedural matters in respect of unfitness to plead are contained in the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act (1964) but the criteria for its determination are derived from a judge’s remarks in R. v. Pritchard (1836) 7 C and P 303. Of more recent origin (in England and Wales) is the plea of diminished responsibility available to defendants charged with murder. This is governed by statute in the Homicide Act (1957), the foundations of which can be discerned in judges’ directions to juries in Scotland where the plea has operated since 1867. Finally, the defence of automatism warrants discussion because the recent case of R. v. Sullivan (1983) 3 WLR 123 has demonstrated the gulf between judicial and psychiatric concepts of mental disease.

Christopher Paul Lindsay Freeman

Christopher Paul Lindsay Freeman (“Chris”) was born and brought up in York and after qualifying trained as a psychiatrist in Edinburgh. During his training he won the coveted Gaskell medal of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. He became one of the foremost psychiatrists of his generation, making important contributions across numerous areas in Scotland and beyond. He was an innovator, not scared to challenge orthodoxy, imbued with huge drive and energy, which allowed him to develop much needed new services. He was appointed to a senior lecturer post at Edinburgh University in 1980 and to an honorary consultant post at the Royal Edinburgh Hospital. Although initially a general psychiatrist, he soon developed a special interest in eating disorders, and in 1984 he moved to a consultant psychotherapy post to pursue this. …

Diminished responsibility in Scotland: New case law

Diminished responsibility – mental abnormality – post traumatic stress disorder – learned helplessness – depression – psychopathy Cases: Galbraith v H. M. Advocate 2001 SCCR 551; McLeod v H. M. Adv...

Diminished responsibility in Scotland

Diminished responsibility – mental abnormality – post traumatic stress disorder – learned helplessness – depression – psychopathy Cases: Galbraith v H. M. Advocate 2001 SCCR 551; McLeod v H. M. Adv...