Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Diminished responsibility (Partial defence) - Coggle Diagram
Diminished responsibility (Partial defence)
4 Elements:
(2) Arising from a 'recognised' medical condition - 2(1) (a)
e.g. Something on the ICD or DSM
However, for reasons of policy—a condition’s inclusion on these lists was a “necessary, but not always … sufficient condition, to raise the issue of diminished responsibility" (
Dowds
, 40)
Under the old law, made-up condition was used ("Othello syndrome" in Vinagre)
(1) An 'Abnormality of mental functions' - 2(1)
R v Brennan [2014] EWCA Crim 2387
R v Conroy
Previously, it only necessary to prove an abnormality of mind.
(3) Which substantially impaired D’ abilities: To understand the nature of their conduct, form a rational judgment, or exercise self-control -- 2(1) (b) and 1 (a)
Substantial means “important or weighty”, + DR requires beyond "trivial" -
R
v
Golds
[2016] UKSC 61,
This means that the impairment need not be total, but must be more than trivial.
Case: Joyce and Kay [2017] EWCA Crim 647 (Schizophrenia)
Criticism
Mackay - The requirement for DR around "understanding one's conduct have effectively created a partial insanity plea -- R. Mackay, “The Coroners and Justice Act 2009
(4) Causation: Abnormality of mental functioning must be a cause or contributory cause to D’s conduct of killing -- 2(1) (c)
Law
s.2 Homicide Act 1957;
Amended by s.52 CJA 2009.
The burden of proof is with D (on the balance of probabilities)
Intoxication
This is excluded (”acute intoxication” is not relevant — Cases:
Dowds
;
Kay
)
If recognised medical condition + voluntarily intoxicated, D must prove the abnormality of mental function became from the recognised medical condition (not from the intoxication — see:
Dietschmann
)
"Alcohol dependency syndrome" and intoxication at the time of the killing, may qualify as a medical condition
This defence is a ‘
partial excuse
’; D should not be held to the standard of a ‘normal’ person because of their medical condition.
Discussion/other
R v Blackman [2017] EWCA Crim 190
Matthew Gibson's view
The criteria for DR was unduly limited by
Golds