Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Diminished responsibility (Substantial impairment (D will have to prove…
Diminished responsibility
Section 2(1), Homicide Act 1957 (amended)
'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
(c) provides an explanation for D's acts and omissions in doing or being part of the killing
Background to diminished responsibility
A special and partial defence to murder
Turns murder to voluntary manslaughter
DR was first introduced by s.2, Homicide Act 1957 and amended by s.52, Coroners & Justice Act 2009
Section 2 (1A), Homicide Act 1957
Due to the defendants abnormality of mental functioning. 'Those things are:
(a) to understand the nature of D's conduct;
(b) to form a rational judgement;
(c) to exercise self control
Needs to be substantially impaired
Section 2(1B), Homicide Act 1957
'For the purposes of s.2(1)(c), an abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for D's conduct if it causes, or is a significant contributory factor in causing, D to carry out that conduct.'
Procedural aspects
Only available to charge of murder
Burden of proof is on the defence (s.2(2))
Standard of proof on the "balance of probabilities"- R v Dunbar (1957)
If successful, results in conviction of manslaughter (s.2(3))- Partial defence
Pleas of guilty to manslaughter may be accepted if the evidence is clear- R v Vinagre (1979)
The reversed burden of proof
R v Foye (2013): "The reverse onus is applied by Parliamentary statute to DR and not to loss of control. That is deliberate and entirely comprehensible. DR depends on the internal mental condition of the defendant. Loss of control depends on an objective judgment of his actions as a reaction to external circumstances.”
Recognised medical condition
Since the 2009 reform, the following conditions have been accepted:
Adjustment disorder: R v Brown (2011)
Alcohol Dependency Syndrome (ADS): R v Richardson (2016)
Autism: R v Conroy (2017)
Dementia: R v Beaver (2015)
Depression: R v Potts (2015)
Paranoia: R v Squelch (2017)
PTSD: R v Janiszewski (2012)
Schizotypal Personality Disorder (SPD): R v Brennan (2014)
Schizopgrenia: R v Jenkin (2014)
These conditions were accepted under the original s.2(1)
Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS): R v Hobson (1998)
Epilepsy: R v Campbell (1997)
Othello syndrome: R v Vinagre (1979)
PMS: R v Reynolds (1988)
Psychopathy: R v Byrne (1960)
Abnormality of mental functioning
No further definition in the Act
No requirement that the abnormality be inherited or present from birth (R v Gomez (1964)
Intoxication: Irrelevant
R v Bunch (2013): ' The law draws an important distinction between voluntary intoxication and alcohol dependancy. The former cannot found a defence of DR. The latter may be capable of doing so...'
Alcohol dependency syndrome
R v Stewart (2009) gives factors for a jury to use in deciding whether D's alcohol dependency has led to a substantial impairment:
(a) the extent and seriousness if D's dependency, if any, on alcohol;
(b) the extent to which D's ability to control his drinking or to choose whether to drink or not, was reduced
(c) whether D was capable of abstinence from alcohol , and if so;
(d) for how long, and
(e) whether D was choosing for some particular reason, to decide to get drunk, or to drink even more than usual
Substantial impairment
D will have to prove that their ability to: (a) understand the nature of their conduct and/or (b) form a rational judgement and/or (c) exercise self-control was substantially impaired
Deciding on 'substantial impairment' is a jury question:
-R v Eifinger (2001)
R v Lloyd (1966): Substantial does not mean total... At the other end of the scale substantial does not mean trivial or minimal. It is something in between.
'Form a rational judgement'
R v Conroy (2017): " a wrong judgement or outcome is by no means the same as an irrational one"
'Provides an explanation'
D's abnormality of mental functioning must cause or be a significant contributory factor in causing D to kill.
No case law as of yet