Coke v. Bumble – comments on some aspects of unlawful killing and its disposal

Abstract

The publication of the Law Commission's Consultation Paper and final proposals for the reform of homicide legislation has prompted the author to review some clinical and legal aspects of homicidal behaviour. It is suggested that the complexities of this behaviour are not well served under current legal provisions.

Homicide law reform: Coke v Bumble – revisited and reassessed

“…20-21). 1 The recent changes implemented by the Government in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 seem very slim in comparison with the Law Commission's extensive proposals, and are very much at odds with the views of criminal justice, legal and forensic mental health professionals. We summarize the changes in Table 1, focusing on the partial defences of provocation and diminished responsibility.…”

“…The revisions made to the diminished responsibility defence aim to bring it more in line with modern-day psychiatry and reduce some of the problems associated with the interpretation of ‘abnormality of mind’. As Prins 1 states: ‘The law relating to homicide in its present form is highly unsatisfactory. And, in particular, where matters of disordered mental states are concerned, it can lead to somewhat unseemly “battles” in court between psychiatry on the one hand and the law on the other' (p. 19).…”

“…1 In doing so, he endeavoured to provide a description of the range of presentations and motivations for homicidal behaviour. (For some further contributions to the clinical aspects see D'Cruze et al, 2 Doctor, 3 Brookman 4 and Royal Society 5 .)…”

“…In an earlier article published in the journal in 2008 the second named author of the present paper set out some of his views on unlawful killing (homicide) and its disposal. 1 In doing so, he endeavoured to provide a description of the range of presentations and motivations for homicidal behaviour. (For some further contributions to the clinical aspects see D'Cruze et al , 2 Doctor, 3 Brookman 4 and Royal Society 5 .)…”

“…They allow mitigating circumstances to be taken into account, as clearly not all defendants who technically 'fit' the current definition of 'murder' deserve a life sentence. 1,10,13 This raises another fundamental problem with the current conception of 'murder' -its definition solely within common law that has remained unchanged for nearly 400 years. A codification of homicide law into a single coherent statute is long overdue.…”