Diminished Responsibility

Question 1

Definition and Act

Answer 1

S.2 Homicide act and S52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Defined as “ D was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning from a recongnised medical condition which substantially impaired his ability to do one or more of the three gateways and provides an explanation for defendants act or omission in killing”

Question 2

1. Abnormality of mental functioning

Answer 2

D must suffer from abnormality of mental functioning which is established through medical evidence

R v Byrne - “a state of mind so different from that of the ordinary human being that a reasonable man would term it abnormal”

Question 3

2. Arises from a medical condition S52 (1)(a)

Answer 3

A.M.F must come from a medical condition that is recognised by psychiatrists according to an internationally defined list.

Sexual psychopath (Byrne), Chronic depression (Seers), Premenstrual tension (Smith), battered spouse syndrome (Ahluwalia), mental deficiency (Speake), post natal depression (Reynolds), alcohol dependency syndrome (Wood)

Question 4

3. Substantial impairment of ability S52(1)(b)

Answer 4

A.M.F must have substantially impaired D’s ability to do one or more of the three gateways.

Understand their conduct S52(1A)(a) - D is in an automatic state and does not know what he is doing.

Form a rational judgement S52(1A)(b) - D may know the nature of his conduct but might not be able to form a rational judgment.

Ability to exercise self-control S52(1A)(c) - D cannot stop himself from killing.

Impairment must be “important or weighty” R v Golds

D substantial impairment cannot come from intoxication alone (R v Dowds)

Question 5

4. Provides an explanation for the D’s conduct S52(1)(c)

Answer 5

D’s A.M.F must ‘cause’ or be a ‘significant contributory factor’ in causing D to kill (S52(1B))

If all apply D will get voluntary manslaughter
If not then D will get murder

Question 6

(Only if in scenario) Intoxication

Answer 6

Intox by itself cannot support a defence for DR as it’s not a recongnised medical condition (Di Duca)

D can have defence if A.M.F substantially impaired his mental responsibility even though he was intoxicated (R v dietschmann)