R v Rejmanski; R v Gassman
A mental disorder that affects the defendant's general capacity for tolerance and self restraint must be disregarded when applying the normal person test in loss of control.
Facts
In two appeals heard together, defendants who relied on the loss of control defence suffered from mental disorders. Mr Rejmanski, a former soldier, suffered from post traumatic stress disorder and depression, and Ms Gassman suffered from a personality disorder and had been taking drugs. Both were convicted of murder. They argued that their conditions should have been taken into account in assessing how a person with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint would have reacted.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals. Section 54(3) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 allows the jury to take into account all of the defendant's circumstances other than those whose only relevance is that they bear on the defendant's general capacity for tolerance or self restraint. A mental disorder may be relevant if it has a bearing on the circumstances, for example where the defendant is taunted about it, but not if its only relevance is that it reduced his general capacity for self restraint. In that case, diminished responsibility may be the more appropriate defence.
Related cases on murder and voluntary manslaughter
- Attorney General for Jersey v Holley [2005] UKPC 23, [2005] 2 AC 580
- R v Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889
- R v Asmelash [2013] EWCA Crim 157, [2014] QB 103
- R v Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396
- R v Challen [2019] EWCA Crim 916
- R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2, [2013] QB 1
- R v Dawes; R v Hatter; R v Bowyer [2013] EWCA Crim 322, [2014] 1 WLR 947
- R v Dietschmann [2003] UKHL 10, [2003] 1 AC 1209
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
