Diminished Responsibility
5.0 / 5 based on 1 rating
- Created by: Ben Stephens
- Created on: 23-01-16 12:50
Introduction
Key Facts:
- outlined in s52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009, replacing old law under the Homicide Act 1957
- Partial defence only available to murder- if it succeds, murder is reduced to voluntary manlsaughter
- DR must be proved on a balance of probabilities, by the party raising the defence (usually the D)
1 of 11
s52(1) Coroners and Justice Act 2009
- s52(1) - 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 [AoMF], which:
- a) arose from a recognised medical condition
- b) substantially impaired D's ability to
- understand the nature and quality of his conduct and/or
- form a rational judgement, and/or
- exercise self-control and
- c) provides an explanation for D's acts and omissions in doing, or being party to, the killing.
- an abnormality of mental functioning [AoMF], which:
2 of 11
Abnormality of Mental Functioning [AoMF]
- For the jury to decide if D was suffering from an AoMF after hearing medical evidence
Byrne (1960)
- D = sexual psychopath
- killed woman
- Medical evidence: he could not control his perverted desires to kill
- Defence successful
- CA defined AoMF: D's mental functioning was so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal
- AoMF includes inability to exercise will power and control
3 of 11
Examples of What Constitutes an AoMF
- Depression - Seers, Gittens
- Jealousy/Othello syndrome - Vinagre
- Paranoia
- Battered-woman syndrome - Duffy, Ahluwalia, Thornton
- Uncontrollable urges - Byrne
- Epilepsy - Campbell
- Sleep disorders
- Pre-menstrual tension - Smith, Reynolds
- Mental deficiency - Speuk
- Psychopathy - Byrne
- Alcoholism - see later cases
4 of 11
s52(1)(a) Arose from Recognised Medical Condition
In determining what constitues a recognised medical condition, existing medically accepted classifications of abnormality will be used
5 of 11
s52(1)(b) Substantial Impairment
The AoMF must have substantially impaired D's ability to do one or more of these three things:
- understand the nature of D's [own] conduct
- form a rationable judgement
- exercise self-control
Definition of 'substantially impaired':
- Egan, Thornton - 'substantial impairment' = 'need not mean total, but must be more than trivial'
Foye (2013)
- D = prisoner who killed another prisoner (a sex offender). Charged w/murder and raised DR
- not doubted that he had an AoMF, but question was whether that substntially impaired him?
- P had evidence that he was calm + in control, planned what he did + targetted V for being a sex offender
- Held: Defence failed - D's AoMF had not substantially impaired his ability to control himself
6 of 11
s52(1)(c) Provides Explanation for D's Acts + Omis
- AoMF must provide an explanation for D's acts and omissions
- this will be if abnormality causes, or was at least a significant contributory factor in causing, the D to carry out the killing
- Ministry of Justice Circular 2010/13 - "It [the abnormality] need not have been the only cause, the main cause or even the most important factor, but it must be more than merely trivial"
- this will be if abnormality causes, or was at least a significant contributory factor in causing, the D to carry out the killing
7 of 11
DR + Intoxication
In cases where D was intoxicated, the jury must decide whether his responsibility would still have been impaired if he had been sober.
There are two situations where this might arise
- 1) D has an AoMF and is intoxicated
- 2) D's long term substance abuse -> alcohol/drug dependancy syndrome (a recognised medical condition) which causes an AoMF
8 of 11
D Has AoMF and is Intoxicated
jury should disregard intoxication and consider if AoMF on its own substantially impaired D's ability.
Egan (1992)
- D = mentally abnormal
- one day, he got drunk and bludgened an old lady to death
- CA: jury should disregard the intocication and only consider wheter the abnormality of mind was enough by itself that it amounted to DR
Dietschmann (2003)
- Lord Hutton: "has D satisfied you that, despite the drink, his mental abnormality substantially impaireed his mental responsibility for his fatal acts, or has he failed to satisfy you of that
9 of 11
D's Long Term Substance Abuse -> Dependency Syndro
Wood (2008)
- D (a chronic alcoholic) gruesomely killed V, while drunk
- CA: appeal allowed
- Jury must consider whether D's syndrome (alcoholism) constituted an AoMF. If it was, they must consider whether this substantially impaired D's mental responsibility
Dowds (2012)
- D killed his partner (V) while intoxicated.
- D did not have alchohol dependence syndrome and had control over his drinking, but was a habitual binge drinker
- Trial judge: voluntary and temporary drunkness was not DR
- D appealed, arguing that 'acute intoxication' is a desease and so satisfies a recognised medical condition
- Appeal dismissed. Voluntary acute intoxication, whether from alcohol or another substance, will not suffice DR
- The appeal was dismissed, despite 'acute intoxication' being a recognised medical condition
10 of 11
Summary
- DR is outlined under s52 Coroners and Justice Act
- DR must be proved on a balance of probabilities by the party raising the defence (the D)
- s52 - a person (D) who kills, or is party to the killing is not to be convicted of murder if
- D suffered an abnormality of mental functioning (Byrne), which
- s52(1)(a) - arose from a recognised medical condition
- s52(1)(b) - substantially impaired (meaning not 'tota'l, but 'more than trivial' - Egan, Thornton) his ability (Foye) to
- understand the nature and quality of D's [own] acts and/or
- form a reasonable judgement and/or
- exercise self-control and
- s52(1)(c) provides and explanation for D's acts
- D suffered an abnormality of mental functioning (Byrne), which
- In relation to diminished responsibility and intoxication:
- D may be intoxicated and suffer an abnormality of mental functioning, where the jury should disregard the intoxication and decide if the AoMF, on its own, was enough to substantially impair D (Egan, Dietschmann)
- D's long term substance abuse has led to dependency syndrome (Woods)
- an AoMF cannot come from 'acute intoxication' (Dowds)
11 of 11
Similar Law resources:
1.0 / 5 based on 1 rating
4.0 / 5 based on 1 rating
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
Comments
No comments have yet been made