R v Blackman [2017] EWCA Crim 190

Criminal law governs offenses that harm or threaten society, outlining rules and penalties to maintain order and safety.

• It covers a range of crimes, including violent acts, theft, and regulatory breaches.

• The law focuses on intent to differentiate between deliberate and accidental actions.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a person with malice aforethought, categorized as first-degree (premeditated) or second-degree (intentional but not premeditated).

• Convictions lead to severe penalties, including life imprisonment or the death penalty. Prosecution must prove intent and unlawfulness beyond a reasonable doubt.

Diminished responsibility is a legal defense that reduces murder liability to manslaughter if a defendant's mental condition impaired their ability to understand or control their actions.

• Psychiatric evidence must show that the defendant's condition significantly affected their behavior at the time of the crime, leading to a potentially more lenient sentence.

Section 14 of the Court Martial Appeals Act 1968 allows for the review of court-martial convictions based on new evidence or legal arguments.

• In the Royal Marines case, it enabled the appeal court to reconsider the murder conviction in light of new psychiatric evidence, potentially leading to a different verdict or a retrial.

In September 2011, Alexander Blackman ( “Appellant”), then an Acting Colour Sergeant in the Royal Marines, killed a badly wounded insurgent in Afghanistan.

• The incident was recorded on video and discovered a year later.

Blackman was charged with murder in October 2013 and was found guilty by a court martial.

• His defense claimed the insurgent was already dead when he shot him.

• No psychiatric evidence was presented at this trial.

Blackman was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of ten years, later reduced to eight years on appeal in 2014.

• A psychiatric report obtained post-trial suggested he might have suffered from combat stress disorder, which had not been diagnosed or considered during the trial.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case back to the Court Martial Appeal Court in December 2016, presenting new psychiatric evidence that Blackman was suffering from an adjustment disorder at the time of the killing.

• This condition impaired his ability to form a rational judgment and exercise self-control, providing grounds for diminished responsibility.

The Court Martial Appeal Court quashed Alexander Blackman's (“Appellant”) conviction for murder.

• Based on the new psychiatric evidence, the court determined the original conviction was unsafe.

The court substituted the murder verdict with a conviction for manslaughter because of diminished responsibility.

• This was pursuant to section 14 of the Court Martial Appeals Act 1968, which allows substituting a different verdict if the court finds the original conviction unsafe based on new evidence.

• The court's decision was heavily influenced by psychiatric reports obtained after the original trial, indicating that Blackman was suffering from an adjustment disorder at the time of the incident.

• This disorder significantly impaired his ability to form a rational judgment and control his actions.

The Crown(“Defense”) and the prosecution agreed that, given the new evidence, substituting the verdict for manslaughter rather than ordering a retrial was the appropriate outcome.

The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was modified to reflect the diminished responsibility of Blackman at the time of the incident.

This resulted in the lesser charge of manslaughter rather than murder, acknowledging his impaired mental state during the act.

The case of Alexander Blackman offers a significant perspective on the nuances of criminal law, especially regarding mental health and legal responsibility.

• His conviction's transition from murder to manslaughter due to diminished responsibility highlights several critical aspects of the justice system.

The legal system’s ability to revisit and amend decisions in light of new evidence, as permitted under Section 14 of the Court Martial Appeals Act 1968, is a crucial mechanism for ensuring justice.

• In Blackman’s case, the appeal based on new psychiatric evaluations allowed the court to reassess the initial judgment.

• This reflects the justice system’s commitment to fairness and the recognition that initial trials may not always capture the complete picture, especially concerning mental health.

• The modification of Blackman’s conviction from murder to manslaughter demonstrates the court’s flexibility and the potential for more nuanced verdicts when presented with compelling new evidence.

• This case highlights the need for the legal system to adapt and respond to complex situations rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach to criminal liability.

The court's decision balances holding individuals accountable for their actions with compassion and understanding of the impact of mental health conditions.

While Blackman’s actions were undeniably severe, the recognition of his impaired mental state provided a more balanced and just outcome, reducing his liability to manslaughter rather than murder.