Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The defence witness, Dr Norman Clarke, is a consultant forensic psychiatrist. He too had the relevant Mental Health Act qualifications and he had been provided with the reports of the other experts. He is the Director of the Douglas Inch Centre in Glasgow and he had extensive experience of dealing with delinquent and disturbed adolescent children as well as adults. He saw the accused, at the home of the accused, on 6 July 1999. He later issued a report dated 7 July which he supported in his evidence. Essentially he supports and agrees with the views of Dr Campbell.
Dr Clark also interviewed the mother of the accused and was informed that, for him, school had always been a considerable struggle. Although he sometimes seems "to get by" this is often misleading and he did not understand. Video films which other children can follow quite readily, have to be viewed by him three times before he can follow them.
The first Crown witness was Dr Dorothy Taylor. Dr Taylor is an experienced consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist. She holds a post at Stratheden Hospital, and is experienced in working with adolescent children, including those charged with serious offences. She issued reports on the accused on 1 July and 2 October 1998. She has the relevant Mental Health Act qualifications and spoke to her reports in evidence.
The second psychiatrist led by the Crown was Dr David Coghill, who is aged 39. He is a Senior Lecturer in Psychiatry in the University of Dundee and for five years has been a consultant psychiatrist. For the last two years he had specialised in child and adolescent psychiatry. He saw the accused on 30 December 1998 and has seen the papers relating to the other experts. He compiled a report dated 22 January 1999 which he spoke to in evidence. He has the relevant Mental Health Act qualifications.
In reply Mr Jackson pointed out that when considered on a second occasion, (following upon Stewart v H.M.A. No.2 1997 J.C 217), the plea in bar of trial in the Stewart case had been sustained.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.