A trial jury asked to assess if a 42-year-old man was so mentally unwell when he pointed two spearguns at armed police last May that he shouldn’t be held criminally responsible, is still deliberating before reaching a verdict.
The eight men and four women started their discussions at around 11:30 on Thursday and had not reached unanimous decisions on the three charges by the end of the day.
They are the first jury to test an article in the Island’s 2016 mental health law.
This allows a jury to reach a special verdict of “not criminally responsible” if they think it more likely than not, that the defendant was suffering such a significant mental disorder at the time of the offence that he shouldn’t be convicted of a crime.
By law, the jury must first be sure that the defendant carried out the acts but in the case of Robert John Ingram Moon, who is accused of two counts of grave and criminal assault and one of affray, both prosecution and defence agree that Mr Moon did what he is accused of.
The trial has heard that, on 15 May, Mr Moon was involved in a two-hour stand-off with armed police, when he stood on his balcony pointing the spearguns at officers.
This had followed an incident the previous day, when Mr Moon was arrested for harassing a convicted sex offender by posting his address on social media.
After being assessed and interviewed at Police Headquarters, Mr Moon was released on police bail, but he strongly objected to the night-time curfew. He returned to his home in Richmond Road and took an overdose.
After spending a few hours in hospital, Mr Moon discharged himself against the wishes of medical staff, who contacted the police. It was a welfare check by officers 30 minutes later that prompted the armed standoff.
Yesterday, Deputy Bailiff Robert MacRae summarised the law and the facts of the case before they retired to reach a verdict.
In three days of hearing evidence at the Royal Jersey Showground, the jury were told that Mr Moon has had diagnosed mental disorders since 2015, although his health deteriorated significantly in the months before the standoff.
The prosecution, however, argues that he had enough awareness of what he was doing on 15 May to make him criminally liable for his actions.
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.