Criminal LawSelf-defence - reasonable force - defendant's psychiatric condition to be taken into account only in exceptional circumstancesR v Martin (Anthony): CA (Lord Woolf CJ, Mr Justice Wright and Mr Justice Grigson): 30 October 2001The defendant shot two burglars who entered his home, killing one and injuring the other.He was convicted of murder and wounding with intent, the jury having rejected his defence of self-defence.

Psychiatric evidence later showed that he suffered from a paranoid personality disorder.

He appealed against conviction on the ground, among other things, that this evidence established that the burglary would have been perceived by him as being a greater threat to his safety than it would by a normal person and that it could have influenced the jury's decision as to whether he had acted reasonably.Michael Wolkind QC and Michael Edmonds (instructed by Saunders & Co) for the defendant.

Rosamund Horwood-Smart QC and Ian James (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service, Norfolk) for the Crown.Held, allowing the appeal in part, that the jury could only have convicted the defendant if it did not believe that he was acting in self-defence or thought he had used an unreasonable amount of force; that it was for the jury to decide the amount of force which it would be reasonable to use in the circumstances in which it found that the defendant believed himself to be in; that, in deciding whether excessive force had been used, it was not appropriate, save in exceptional circumstances which would make the evidence especially probative, to take into account whether the defendant was suffering from a psychiatric condition; but that, in view of fresh evidence on diminished responsibility, the murder conviction would be quashed and a conviction of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility substituted (WLR).