diminished responsibility

Question 1

is diminished responsibility a full defence?

Answer 1

• no, a partial defence to murder,

Question 2

what is diminished responsibility?

Answer 2

• defence is set out in section 2 homicide act 1957 as amended by the coroners and justice act 2009,
• first came into existence following homicide act 1957,

Question 3

abnormality of mental functioning

Answer 3

• defendant must prove (on balance of probabilities) that he was suffering (from an abnormality of mental functioning),
• psychiatrist will be required to give medical evidence,
• ‘a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal’ (Byrne),
• definition of abnormality of mental functioning,

Question 4

recognised medical condition

Answer 4

• psychological and physical conditions,
• covers any recognised mental disorder,
• depressive illness - gittens 1984 - beat his wife and stepdaughter to death,
• battered woman syndrome (Hobson),
• alcoholism (Stewart),
• mental deficiently (speake),
• this would also include conditions such as bipolar disorder, paranoid depression, schizophrenia, obsessive compulsive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder,

Question 5

substantially impaired

Answer 5

• the abnormality of mental functioning arising from recognised medical condition must substantially impair d’s ability to do 1 of 3 (S53)(1)(a):
  1. understand the nature of hid conduct,
  2. form a rational judgement,
  3. excercise self-control,
• it is one of degree for a jury to decide (Byrne),
• it does not mean total impairment, nor does it mean trivial or minimal,
• it’s something in between for the jury to decide (Lloyd),
• it must be appreciable or significant (Egan),
• the above cases were all decided before the 2009 act but in R v Golds the supreme court decided that there was nothing to suggest parliament had wanted the definitions to change,

Question 6

understand nature of his conduct

Answer 6

• could arise where d is suffering from delusions,
• could cover people with learning difficulties where mental age is so low that they do not understand the nature of what they are doing,

Question 7

rational judgement

Answer 7

• the d may not be able to form a rational judgement about his acts or omissions,
• people suffering with paranoia or schizophrenia or battered women’s syndrome,

Question 8

ability to exercise self control

Answer 8

• as in Byrne, was unable to control his perverted sexual desires,

Question 9

explanation for d’s conduct

Answer 9

• d must prove that the abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for his acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing,
• it must be a significant factor, but does not have to be the only factor,

Question 10

DR and intoxication

Answer 10

• the defence of DR can present problems where intoxication is an issue:
• 2 types of situations,
  1. d is suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning and is intoxicated,
  2. d’s long-term abuse of alcohol/drugs has led to a recognised medical condition (alcohol/drug dependency syndrome) which causes an abnormality of mental functioning,
• intoxication is due to addiction,

Question 10

situation 1

Answer 10

• the jury should disregard the effect of the intoxication and merely consider the abnormality of mental functioning in the usual way,
• Dietschmann,

Question 11

situation 2

Answer 11

• R v Wood, set out the current law, overruling previous authority (Tandy),
• key points:
  . alcohol/drug dependency syndrome could be a source of the abnormality of mental functioning,
• the jury would have to consider the nature and extent of the syndrome,

Question 12

3 key points

Answer 12

1. was the syndrome such it caused d to suffer from an abnormality of mental functioning?
2. was the abnormality caused by ADS?
3. did the abnormality substantially impair the d’s ability to understand nature of conduct, or form a rational judgement or exercise self-control?

Question 13

factors to consider when deciding

Answer 13

• could d control the drinking?
• was d capable of abstinence or were they choosing the drink?
• was there a pattern of drinking before killing?
• was d capable of making decisions on day to day matters,
• if drinking is voluntary then the defence will be likely to fail,
• this test came from R v Stewart,

Question 14

what happens if the d proves the defence?

Answer 14

• not guilty of murder,
• but guilty of voluntary manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility,