Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
voluntary manslaughter (diminished responsibility) - Coggle Diagram
voluntary manslaughter (diminished responsibility)
diminished responsibility; s52.(1), (a), (b), (c) - replaced old defence under s2(1) of the Homicide Act 1957.
1) abnormality of mental functioning which - 2) arose from a recognised medical condition - 3) substantially impaired D's ability to understand nature of conduct or form a rational judgment or to exercise self control and it - 4) provides an explanation for D's acts.
diminished responsibility successful: murder charge reduced to one of voluntary manslaughter, meaning judge does not have to give a mandatory life sentence.
diminished responsibility cases
R v Byrne - sexual psychopath strangled and mutilated woman's body, due to condition: unable to control perverted desires, CoA quashed conviction, decided defence covered ability to control physical acts as well as thoughts, objective test.
R v Ahluwalia - defendant abused by husband for years, killed husband by lighting afire with petrol in his sleep, took defence as battered women's syndrome, conviction quashed to manslaughter.
R v Jama - 19 year old with Asperger's stabbed friend to death over computer game, CoA quashed conviction to manslaughter as Judge was under duty to consider medical evidence raised that could've supported the defence.
R v Lloyd - D strangled wife, suffered from reactive recurrent depression, not as low as a minimal impairment but not substantial, what amounted to a 'substantial' impairment - 'more than some trivial degree of impairment', D guilty of murder as couldn't show his depression was substantial.
R v Golds - whether D was in psychotic state at the time of killing (his wife), SC said Judge wasn't required to define 'substantially' as 'while impairment must be more than merely trivial to substantial, not the case that any impairment that is more than trivial will suffice.
R v Di Duca - transient (temporary) effect of drink on brain might themselves be an injury, but doubted, no evidence of abnormality of the mind, so appeal of defence dismissed when D claimed 'toxic' effect of alcohol had resulted in abnormality of mind.
expanse on s52.(1)
abnormality of mental functioning - a state of mind so different to that of ordinary human beings that a reasonable man would term it abnormal.
recognised medical condition - evidence required from medical professionals, can include psychological and physiological conditions.
substantially impairs - ability to form rational judgment; understand nature of conduct; exercise self control.
provide explanation for D's conduct - the abnormality of mental functioning must be a significant factor in the killing, but not only factor.
DR and intoxication - intoxication isn't DR but to decide whether it amounts to Alcohol Dependency Syndrome.
R v Dowds - D killed girlfriend, both drinking, appealed on grounds of 'acute intoxication', appeal rejected as wasn't capable of founding defence of DR.
R v Dietschmann - D depressed as aunt is dead, drinks with friends and beats V to death accusing him of breaking watch given by aunt, even though he was intoxicated, his abnormality of mental functioning was sufficient enough for the defence.
R v Stewart - Alcohol Dependency Syndrome is a recognised medical condition (person that cannot control their drinking), medical evidence would show if the D was suffering from this; their mental responsibility was impaired by this; and it was a significant factor in the killing, then the defence is available.