Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Requirements for liability for Homicide - LO3 - Requirements of Defences…
Requirements for liability for Homicide - LO3 - Requirements of Defences to Murder
Diminished responsibility
s2 Homicide Act 1957 as amended by s52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 meaning of the statutory provisions denoting the criteria for the defence.
relationship between diminished responsibility and other criminal law defences based on lack of mental responsibility eg, the defences of insanity and automatism.
R v Byrne (1960)
"abnormality of mind" was wide enough to cover the mind's activities in all its aspects, including the ability to exercise will power to control physical acts in accordance with rational judgment. But "abnormality of mind" means a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that a reasonable man would term it abnormal. He was thus allowed the defence to reduce the murder conviction to manslaughter.
R v Tandy (1988)
The defence of diminished responsibility arising out of alcoholism only exists where there was an abnormality of mind induced by the disease of alcoholism that substantially impaired mental responsibility.
R v Dietschmann (2003)
Diminished responsibility - Defendant killed victim while intoxicated and suffering from abnormality of mind - House of Lords allowed appeal - Matter remitted to Court of Appeal to decide whether to substitute manslaughter for murder - Retrial appropriate - Substantial amount of time lapsed since offence - However, in all circumstances retrial could be fair.
R v Ramchurn (2010)
When directing a jury in relation to whether a defendant's mental responsibility for his actions was substantially impaired for the purposes of the defence of diminished responsibility, it was necessary for the judge to convey the plain meaning of the Homicide Act 1957 s.2(1). There was no uncertainty or ambiguity in the language of the statute.
R v Khan (Dawood)(2009)
The Court of Appeal, in upholding the conviction, reaffirmed that the issue of whether an abnormality of the mind was of a severity to substantially impair the responsibility of the accused was a question of degree and one that a jury should consider. The correct approach when an abnormality of the mind is proven is to then allow a jury to determine the extent of the defendant’s understanding of his physical acts and whether he had any control over these at the time the attack took place
R v Stewart (2009)
The appeal was allowed. The effect of the direction was that the defence would not be available if the jury found that any of the appellant's drinking was voluntary and as such following R v Wood [2009] 1 WLR 496, amounted to a misdirection.
R v Wood (2008)
The appeal was allowed and the appellant’s conviction for murder was quashed.
President of the Queen’s Bench:
“The problem with Mitting J's second limb direction is that whether the appellant was suffering from alcohol induced brain damage or not, the experts agreed that the alcohol was consumed by a man suffering from alcohol dependency syndrome
R v Fenton (1975)
Although a case might arise where an accused could prove such a craving for drink or drugs as to produce in itself an abnormality of mind, so as to cause diminished responsibility within the Homicide Act 1957 s.2 (1) self-induced intoxication could not of itself produce an abnormality of mind due to inherent causes.
R v Dowds (2012)
The re-formulation of the statutory conditions for diminished responsibility within the Homicide Act 1957 s.2 had not been intended to reverse the well-established rule that voluntary acute intoxication, whether from alcohol or any other substance, was not capable of founding the partial defence of diminished responsibility.