The key question for jurors is whether or not Daniel O’Hara Wright was insane at the time of the alleged murder of his mother.

DNA evidence linking the 24-year-old to the killing was said by prosecutor Alan Blake on Monday to be ‘overwhelming’. 

In law, the jury may find O’Hara Wright not guilty of murder ‘by reason of insanity’ if they were convinced on the balance of probabilities that he was insane so as not to be responsible for his actions.

Two psychiatrists had assessed the defendant, who was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia after the incident last October, the jury was told on Monday. 

Both had concluded he’d been suffering delusions at the time of the alleged murder and was insane.

READ MORE: Murder accused 'gouged mother's eyes', Oxford jurors told

READ MORE: Live updates from day two of murder trial

Question of insanity is for jurors to decide

Mr Blake said it was for the jury to decide if the defendant was not guilty of murder by reason of insanity.

“You will need to consider the opinions of the expert psychiatrists instructed by the defence and the prosecution and determine whether you accept their assessments that Daniel was suffering from a severe mental disorder at the time and that he was probably legally insane,” he said. 

“If you do find that he did kill Carole but was probably insane at the time then the correct verdict is one of not guilty by reason of insanity.

“That decision is not one for doctors. It is not one for lawyers. It is one for you, informed and assisted by the experts who will give evidence before you.” 

The defendant’s case is understood to be that he was not in the right mind at the time of the alleged murder.

O’Hara Wright is currently in Broadmoor, jurors were told at the beginning of the trial.

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Tik Tok

Got a story for us? Send us your news and pictures here

List an event for free on our website here