Chapter 10: Diminished responsibility Flashcards
When can the defence of diminished responsiblity be raised?
DR can only be raised when charged with murder
What is D suggesting when pleading DR?
Defendant is trying to plead that they had certain mental deficiencies, which resulted in taking someone’s life
What is the history/background of DR?
DR has no prior history, it just came from section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957
Which has been substituted (cut & pasted) into the wordings in section 52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
What are the 5 nature/aspects of DR?
Defence is available to those charged with murder as principals/secondary parties (not for attempted murder)
- R v Campbell [1997]
BOP (legal burden) is on the accused - on balance of probabilities
- Section 2(2) Homicide Act 1957 / R v Dunbar [1957]
2 medical evidence from experts
- R v Dix [1981]
Procedural issue - if accused gives medical evidence, and prosecution can’t counter with their own evidence. Then the charge (murder) is withdrawn from the jury
- R v Brennan [2014]
Sentencing
- Avoids mandatory life sentencing
What is sentencing for successful DR? What are other methods of punishement for DR?
Sentencing
- Successful DR is up to 10 years of imprisonment
Other methods of punishment/sentencing
- Hospital orders
- Restriction orders
- Guardianship orders
What are the 3 ingredients/elements for successful DR?
- D was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which arose from a recognised medical condition;
-
Substantially impaired D’s ability: (couldn’t carry out these 3 things)
i. To understand the nature of D’s conduct; or
ii. To form a rational judgement; or
iii. To exercise self-control - Provides an explanation for D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing
What is part 1 element of successful DR
- “…abnormality of mental functioning…”
- “…recognised medical condition…”
How can we break down “…abnormality of mental functioning…”
The old law required “…abnormality of the mind…” (R v Bryne)
- The old law was heavily criticised that it was vague and did not relate to psychiatric practice
The new phrase was preferred by psychiatrists who made submissions to the Law Commissions
- The Law Commissions does not clarify this phrase any more than what was submitted by the psychiatrists
There is not actually any definition to it
How can we break down “…recognised medical condition…”
The Act does not state what and by whom the conditions needs to be medically recognised by.
But there are examples of “abnormality of Mind” that can be seen in cases
What are the 7 example cases of “abnormality of Mind”. What are the medical conditions of each case?
- R v Seers -Depression
- R v Byrne - Irresistible impulse
- R v Straw - Paranoid schizophrenia
- R v Reynolds - Premenstrual syndrome postnatal stress disorder
- R v Ahluwalia - Battered wife syndrome
- R v Hobson [1997] - Battered wife syndrome
- R v Sanderson [1993] - Paranoid psychosis
What is part 2 elementof successful DR?
“…substantially impaired…”
How can we break down “…substantially impaired…”. What case discovered this test?
This requirement is a question for the jury
R v Simcox [1964] Crim LR 402
- COA approved a direction by the trial judge which indicated that the impairment has to be considerable, for it to be substantial
- “Do we think looking at it broadly as common-sense people, there was a substantial impairment of his mental responsibility in what he did? If the answer is “no”, there may be some impairment, but we do not think it was substantial, we do not think it was something that really made any great difference, although it may have been harder to control himself, to refrain from crime, then you would find him guilty…”
What is part 3 element of successful DR?
“…provides an explanation for D’s acts or omissions in doing or being a part of the killing…”
How can we break down “…provides an explanation for D’s acts or omissions in doing or being a part of the killing…”
- The law now makes it clear that there must be a connection between abnormality of mental functioning and the killing (so if there was no difference to D’s behavior, DR would not succeed)
- But it need not be the sole cause of killing
- But the test is more than one of “but for” causation
What is the case that shows part 3 element - “…provides an explanation for D’s acts or omissions in doing or being a part of the killing…”
R v Diestchman [2003]
- HOL held that where a D pleads DR resulting from the combination of mental responsibility and intoxication the jury should be satisfied that, despite the drink, the D’s mental abnormality substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his fatal acts
