diminished responisbility
S52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009:
Persons suffering from diminished responsibility (England and Wales):
A person (“D”) who kills or is a party to the killing of another is not to be convicted of murder if D was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which:
(a) arose from a recognised medical condition,
(b) substantially impaired D’s ability to do one or more of the things mentioned in subsection (1A), and
(c) provides an explanation for D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.
(1A) Those things are:
(a)to understand the nature of D’s conduct;
(b) to form a rational judgment;
(c) to exercise self-control.
abnormality of mental functioning
• The defendant must be suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning.
R v Byrne (1960)
The defendant murdered a young girl staying in a YMCA hostel. He then mutilated her body and whilst he did so he was suffering from irresistible impulses which he was unable to control.
covered all activities of the mind,
exercise willpower to control physical acts
is a state of mind so different from that of the ordinary human being that the reasonable man would term it abnormal”.
arose from a recognised medical condition
• D’s abnormality must be as a result of a recognised medical condition.
Fenton (1975)
An abnormality of mind caused by binge drinking or occasional drug taking is not usually sufficient. However, addictions are seen as medical diseases and would be taken into account due to the long-term damage.
Tandy
alcohol is only valid in the case of brain damage (ads)
The abnormality substantially impaired D’s ability to do one of three things:
Understand the nature of their conduct; and/or
• Form a rational judgement; and/or
Exercise self-control
R v Lloyd
From time to time he had suffered recurrent episodes of reactive depression.
Substantial does not mean total
the abormality provides an explainarion for D’s acts and omissions
The abnormality of mental functioning must provide an explanation for the killing.
S52(1b)
‘An explanation is provided when the abnormality was a significant contributory factor in causing the defendant to carry out the conduct’.
Gittens (1984):
at time of the killing, he suffered from severe depression and personality disorder.
“ask yourselves what was the substantial cause of his conduct. If it be substantially the abnormality of mind arising for those reasons other than drink or drugs, why then, the defence of diminished responsibility has been established.”
Byrne
the impulses from which the defendant suffered were not absolutely irresistible, but were extremely difficult to control. In that case, this was considered sufficient, but it will always be a matter of fact for the jury to decide. His lack of self-control provided an explanation for his act of killing.
evaluation
offence tried in crown court and is indictable
partial défense that diminishes responsibility and redcues a conviction of murder to that of voluntary manslaughter - it means that those who suffer from mental abnormalities are not put at fault for biological disadvantages
it is up to the jury to decide whether it arose from a recognised medical condition - no specialist knowledge, unfair outcomes
must be psychiatric testimony - provides concrete evidence of the condition
loss of self control
S54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009:
(1) Where a person (“D”) kills or is a party to the killing of another (“V”), D is not to be convicted of murder if:
(a)D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D’s loss of self-control,
(b) the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, and
(c)a person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D
The defendant must have killed because of a loss of self-control
a. Must occur at the time of the killing
b. There must be a total loss of self-control.
Jewell (2014)
The defendant had told officers that he had been told he had two days left to live. However, on the morning of the next day, he said something snapped and, as if in a dream, he shot the victim.
The loss of self-control involved the loss of the ability to act in accordance with considered judgement or a loss of normal powers of reasoning. There also has to be sufficient evidence that D lost control.
R v Dawes
The defendant Mark Dawes, went to his estranged wife’s house and found her asleep on the sofa with another man Graham Pethard. This had triggered a past traumatic event for the defendant as his wife has previously cheated whilst they were still married which he struggles to cope with. The defendant woke
up Mr Pethard, started punching him in the face and hitting him with a bottle. Pethard took the bottle off him and attacked him. The defendant then grabbed a knife from the kitchen and fatally stabbed him in the neck. The loss of self-control does not have to be sudden as a reaction to extreme gravity may be delayed.
Under S54 (4) Coroners and Justice Act 2009, if the defendant acted out of a motive of revenge, they cannot use this defence.
Under S54(2) there is not a need for loss of self-control to be sudden.
there must have been a ‘qualifying trigger’
Fear of serious violence from the victim against the defendant or another identified person, and/or
Fear is included as a qualifying trigger
b. Circumstances where the defendant’s loss of self-control was attributable to a thing or things done or said (or both) which:
1. constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and il. caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously
wronged?
In determining whether a loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger:
• The defendant’s fear of serious violence is to be disregarded to the extent that t was caused by a thing which the defendant provoked to be done or said for the purpose of providing an excuse to use violence (s55(6)(a))
• A sense of being seriously wronged by a thing done or said is not justifiable if the defendant provoked the thing to be done or said for the purpose of providing an excuse to use violence s55(6)(b):
• The fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded (s55(6)(c)).
Case notes for qualifying triggers
R v Clinton (2012)
The defendant and his wife both suffered from depression and were on prescribed medication. He was experiencing financial difficulties and stress at work. They agreed to separate for four weeks and his wife left home with the children and moved into her parent’s home. The defendant did not cope well and became obsessional. She later told him that she was having an affair.
. However, where other factors count as a qualifying trigger, sexual infidelity may be taken to assess whether things done or said amounted to circumstances of an extremely grave character and gave D a justifiable sense of being wronged.
R v Hatter (2013)
Started seeing another man. he went to her house with a knife and climbed through an upstairs window. He claimed he took the knife to lift the carpets and had accidentally stabbed her in the chest and wrist when he spun around. He then also stabbed himself in the chest but survived. The trial judge stated that there was no evidence that he had lost his control, the circumstances were not of an extremely grave nature nor did he have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
R v Lodge
The defendant had lost his self-control and killed the victim (a small-scale drug dealer) after the victim attacked him with a baseball bat. The defendant had lost his self-control in response to serious violence from the victim.
R v Ward
The defendant had killed the victim who had previously attacked his brother at a house party. The defendant had lost self-control due to serious violence issued by the victim.
would a reasonable person have been provoked to act this way
This is an objective test where the court will consider whether a person of D’s sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint in D’s circumstances might have reacted in a similar way to the D. For this, they are compared to a reasonable person.
The jury may now decide which of the defendant’s other characteristic are relevant
case notes for reasonable person (loss of self control)
A-G for Jersey v Holley (2005)
The defendant had a stormy relationship with the deceased They were both alcoholics and he had a history of violence towards her for which he had spent time in prison and had depression Once released, she told him that she did not. want to continue the relationship. However, they continued to live together but had constant rows. One afternoon, they had both been in the pub, had an argument and he returned home. Later on, she returned and told him that she had had ex with another man. He then hacked her to death with an axe. Mental characteristics are to be attributed to the reasonable man with the same characteristics.
R v James and Karimi (2006)
James killed his wife by stabbing, punching and suffocating her.
The couple had been separated for five months and she had formed a new relationship with another man. This shows that the reasonable person is a reasonable person with the same characteristics as the defendant. Mental characteristics are to be attributed to the reasonable man with the same characteristics
R v Clinton (2012)
The defendant and his wife both suffered from depression and were on prescribed medication. He was experiencing financial difficulties and stress at work. They agreed to separate for four weeks and his wife left home with the children and moved into her parent’s home. The defendant did not cope well and became obsessional. She later told him that she was having an affair.
They arranged to tell the children together at their home however, he had arranged for the children to be elsewhere. At the meeting he was heavily intoxicated and killed her by repeatedly beating her on the head with a wooden baton and strangled her with a belt. Sexual infidelity cannot in itself be a qualifying trigger. However, where other factors count as a qualifying trigger, sexual infidelity may be taken to assess whether things done or said amounted to circumstances of an extremely grave character and gave D a justifiable sense of being wronged.
R v Hatter (2013)
Mark Hatter developed a relationship with Dawn Blackhouse. She was younger than him. He was very generous to her and her children. She has promised to have her sterilisation reversed. The relationship later phased out and she started seeing another man however, she never told Mark it was over. At midnight, he went to her house with a knife and climbed through an upstairs window. He claimed he took the knife to lift the carpets and had accidentally stabbed her in the chest and wrist when he spun around. He then also stabbed himself in the chest but survived. The trial judge stated that there was no evidence that he had lost his control, the circumstances were not of an extremely grave nature nor did he have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
R v Lodge
The defendant had lost his self-control and killed the victim (a small-scale drug dealer after the victim attacked him with a baseball bat. The defendant had lost his self-control in response to serious violence from the victim.
R v Ward
The defendant had killed the victim who had previously attacked his brother at a house party. The defendant had lost self-control due to serious violence issued by the victim.
DPP v Camplin (1978)
A 15-year-old boy killed a middle-aged man by hitting him over the head with a chapati pan. At his trial the defendant stated that the deceased had raped him and then laughed at him at which point he lost his control and hit him. The defendant was originally judged against a reasonable adult. However, this was a mistake, and he was instead judged against the standard of a reasonable 15-year-old when he appealed. If the defendant is a juvenile, their age should be a characteristic attributed to the reasonable person.
evaluation
Would be trialled at the Crown court as it is an indictable offence.
it reduces a conviction of murder to voluntary manslaughter reducing it to a discretionary life sentence
adultery is ruled out as a qualifying trigger - prevents it being used as an excuse
the law doesn’t require the consideration of religion and culture - we are all products of the culture we grew up in
introduction
for the offence of manslaughter by gross negligence, the defendant is allegedly acting lawfully. Lack the mens rea. But, victim dies as a result of their negligence.
R v Adomako - precedent
Lord Mackay LC
R v Watts - It had been open to the jury to return the verdict of gross negligence manslaughter and that gross negligence was by reason an act of acts and not an omission.
R v Willoughby - Court of Appeal stated that duty, breach, and gross negligence were all matters go be decided by the jury.
duty of care
Donoghue v Stevenson - manfacturers owe a duty of care to the consumers
Neighbour principle - created the law of negligence and set out when a duty of care would be owed.
R v Wacker
R v Evans
breach of duty
The defendant’s conduct must have breached their duty of care to the victim.
It is an objective test and will be based on defendant’s position at the time of the breach. Whether the reasonable man with the same skills would have done the same in the same situation
R v Holloway
breach is characterised by gross negligence
R v Bateman
Lord Hewart
The basic test is an objective test, asking whether a person’s conduct has fallen below the standards of a reasonable person
The court will consider:
1) The defendant’s thoughts
2) The reasonable person’s thoughts
3) The defendant’s acts or omissions
R v Misra and Srivastava
introduction
for the offence of manslaughter by gross negligence, the defendant is allegedly acting lawfully. Lack the mens rea. But, victim dies as a result of their negligence.
R v Adomako - precedent
Lord Mackay LC
R v Watts - It had been open to the jury to return the verdict of gross negligence manslaughter and that gross negligence was by reason an act of acts and not an omission.
R v Willoughby - Court of Appeal stated that duty, breach, and gross negligence were all matters go be decided by the jury.
Duty of care
Donoghue v Stevenson - manfacturers owe a duty of care to the consumers
Neighbour principle - created the law of negligence and set out when a duty of care would be owed.
R v Wacker
R v Evans
breach of duty
The defendant’s conduct must have breached their duty of care to the victim.
It is an objective test and will be based on defendant’s position at the time of the breach. Whether the reasonable man with the same skills would have done the same in the same situation
R v Holloway
breach is characterised by gross negligence
R v Bateman
Lord Hewart
The basic test is an objective test, asking whether a person’s conduct has fallen below the standards of a reasonable person
The court will consider:
1) The defendant’s thoughts
2) The reasonable person’s thoughts
3) The defendant’s acts or omissions
R v Misra and Srivastava
breach causes death
Factual and legal causation
-But for
- De minimus
- The original injury was an operative and significant cause of death
- Intervening acts
- Thin skull
evaluation
A defendant can receive a maximum life imprisonment which would be a discretionary life sentence
- It is an indictable offence and is trialled at the Crown Court.
- The offence was established by a case law (R v Adomako).
- It has been critiqued for following the rules of civil law when establishing guilt in criminal law.
