1B - Voluntary Manslaughter - Diminished Responsibility

Question 1

Where can the defence of diminished responsibility be found?

Answer 1

s.2 Homicide Act 1957 as amended by s.52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Question 2

Step 1: s.52

Answer 2

A person who kills is not to be convicted of murder if he was suffering from an…

Question 3

Step 2: s.52(1)

Answer 3

Abnormality of mental functioning

R v Byrne

Question 4

Step 3: s.52(1)(a)

Answer 4

the abnormality of mental functioning must arise from a ‘recognised medical condition’
R v Brennan

Question 5

Step 4: s.52(b)

Answer 5

the abnormality of mental functioning must substantially impair the D’s mental responsibilty for his acts or omissions in doing the killing
R v Byrne - substantial is for the jury to decide
R v Lloyd - substantial doesn’t mean total or trivial or minimal
R v Golds - jury must use common sense when deciding

Question 6

Step 5: s.52(1A) - What must be substantially impaired

Answer 6

The D’s ability to do one of three things must be substantially impaired:

(1) ability to understand the nature of his conduct
(2) ability to form a rational judgment
(3) ability to exercise self-control

Question 7

Step 6: s.52(1B)

Answer 7

D has to prove that the abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for his acts and omissions in doing the killing
‘significant contributory factor in causing the D to act as he did’
ie. doesn’t need to be the only factor, just significant
this is important where the D is intoxicated

Question 8

Diminished responsibility and intoxication

Answer 8

The defence of diminished responsibility becomes more complicated when the defendant is also intoxicated (alcohol/drugs) at the time of the killing. There are three situations to consider

Question 9

Diminished responsibility and intoxication - three situations

Answer 9

(1) D was intoxicated at the time of the killing (R v Dowds)
(2) D was intoxicated and had a pre-existing abnormality of mental functioning (R v Dietschmann)
(3) D’s intoxication is due to addiction (R v Wood)

Question 10

DR - The three-stage test set out in R v Stewart to deal with voluntary and involuntary intoxication

Answer 10

(1) Was D suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning? ADS isn’t enough to amount to an abnormality, it’s nature and extent has to be considered
(2) If so, was the D’s abnormality caused by the ADS?
(3) If so, was D’s mental responsibility substantially impaired? To decide this all evidence, including the medical evidence, should be considered:
a. the extent and seriousness of D’s dependency
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, for how long
d. whether D was choosing for a particular reason (eg birthday) to decide to get drunk, or to drink more than usual
e. D’s pattern of drinking preceding the killing
f. D’s ability, if any, to make decisions about ordinary day-to-day matters