Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Is retained responsibility a matter for expert psychiatric evidence?

Bibliographic Data

ID22411320
AuthorsKeith Rix (0000-0002-0575-3277, Chambers of Mark Love, corresponding author)
Year2026
Pages258024261437518-258024261437518
Publication date2026-03-31
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueMedicine Science and the Law (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0025-8024 • E-ISSN: 2042-1818
PublisherSAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/00258024261437518
PMID41914760
OpenAlexW7144178186
LanguageEN
References cited1

The Sentencing Remarks in the diminished responsibility manslaughter case R v Worby have led to discussion as to whether retained responsibility is a matter for expert psychiatric evidence. The view of the author is that it is. Analysis of the case, sentencing guidelines, and case law are used to support this viewpoint and to demonstrate similarities with the position adopted by Hallett in his influential paper ‘To what extent should expert psychiatric witnesses comment on criminal culpability?’, published in 2020 in this journal, which critically examined the boundaries of expert psychiatric testimony regarding culpability. Suggestions are made as to how psychiatric experts should respond if asked to assist with retained responsibility.

Criminal responsibility · Diminished responsibility · Expert witness · Forensic psychiatry · Poison control · Position (finance) · Child Abuse and Related Trauma · Human Factors and Ergonomics · Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues · Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending

Citation velocityhistorical
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae