7/31/2023 0 Comments Found not guilty on all chargesThe defendant was accused of a killing offence, but the jury concluded the killing occurred in self-defence. See also No Prosecution Evidence.ĭetail of 1809 courtroom scene, by Augustus Pugin and Thomas Rowlandson. The case could not proceed because the victim of the crime did not appear to testify against the defendant. This verdict resulted in the defendant being acquitted because there was an inaccuracy in the way the indictment was written or the offence was charged. This verdict was used in those cases where the prosecution failed to offer any evidence to support their case against the accused. In a small number of such trials medical testimony was provided.Ī new category of guilty but insane was introduced in 1800, and allowed juries for the first time to find a defendant guilty who they nevertheless considered insane. For example, it became acceptable to argue that even if a crime was rationally planned, the defendant might still be found not guilty if he was unable to understand right from wrong. In the nineteenth century the standards applied in cases involving mental derangement became less rigorous. If this argument was accepted juries delivered the verdict of "non compos mentis".Ĭoncern that people discharged as a result of this verdict would commit further offences, led to the passage of the "Act for the Safe Custody of Insane Persons Charged with Offences" in 1800, which specified that those acquitted should be kept in custody at his Majesty's pleasure. In order for this argument to be accepted, the defendant had to have a total lack of reason and understanding, and be entirely unable to understand the difference between right and wrong. (Also termed insane, deranged, not of sound mind, imbecile, lunatic, fool, idiot, out of his senses.)ĭefendants could argue in their defence that they were not responsible for the crime, owing to the fact that they were not of sound mind, and therefore could not be held responsible for their actions. This was an acquittal verdict dictated by the trial judge, usually on the grounds that one of the parties had failed to prove the case involved a matter in law. This verdict was often used when death was caused by the accidental discharge, or by a traffic accident. The defendant was accused of killing the victim, but the jury concluded the death was accidental, or "by misfortune". The range of circumstances cited include: In addition to the simple verdict of not guilty, information was sometimes provided on why the jury came to its conclusion. An Assize court jury, hearing trials held at County Hall, Market Square, Aylesbury.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |