Diminished Responsibility Structure

Question 1

Intro

Answer 1

D could use the defense of diminished responsibility from S.2 Homicide Act 1957
- it was amended by s.52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 which improved several parts of this defense

Question 2

P1 - S.2(1) - Abnormality of mental functioning

Answer 2

• `under s.2 (1) AMF used to be referred to as abnormality of mind” but this ws changed to ‘Amf: by s.52(1- of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 which has made the law clearer

Question 3

Where is AMF defined in which case?

Answer 3

• R v bryne as a ‘state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that reasonable man would term it abnormal’

Question 4

P2 - S.2(1)(a)

Answer 4

AMF arose from a recognized medical condition
- this can be mental or physical under s.2 (1)(a) .
- Expert medical evidence is required
The world health organization recognized medical conditions such as schizophrenia, depression (R v Seers , paranoia (R v Bryne) and recently alcohol dependency (R v Wood)

Question 5

P3 - S.2(1a) and S.2 (1)(b)

Answer 5

“those things with must be substantially impaired”
a) D’s ability to understand the nature of their conduct
b) D’s ability to form a rational judgement and or/
(c) `D’s ability to exercise self control - seen in R v Golds

Question 6

In relation to P3 - what happened in the case of R v Gold

Answer 6

“substantially impaired” was held to mean a serious degree of impairment although the exact threshold for seriousness is still unclear.

Question 7

P4 S 2(1)(c)

Answer 7

• the AMF provides an explanation for D killing V
• this means that there must be a causal connection between the AMF and D’s decision to kill the victim. the defense should not succeed where the defendants mental conditional made no different to their behavior.