Chapter 3 - Voluntary Manslaughter Flashcards
What are the two special defences to murder?
(1) diminished responsibility
(2) loss of control
In which Act was diminished responsibility set and and in which Act was it amended?
Diminished responsibility was set out in the Homicide Act 1957 and was amended by s 52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
What does a partial defence mean?
The defendant is not able to be acquitted completely as instead they just reduce the offence of murder to voluntary manslaughter
Why is it known as VOLUNTARY manslaughter?
Because the defendant had the necessary mens rea for murder
Does the judge have discretion when sentencing someone with voluntary manslaughter?
Yes, the judge does have discretion because they don’t have to impose a mandatory life sentence and can impose a more appropriate sentence
What is the definition of voluntary manslaughter?
The verdict where the defendant has a partial defence to murder when the unlawful killing was carried out when the defendant was suffering from diminished responsibility or loss of control
Before diminished responsibility was amended what was the main problem?
If a person with mental problems kills someone then their only defence was insanity and the test for insanity is very narrow and many D’s who suffer from a mental illness do not always come within it
Why was the defence of diminished responsibility developed?
Because those with mental illnesses did not always come within the narrow test of insanity and therefore left without a defence and this is why diminished responsibility was created
Under s 52 of the CJA 2009 what were the 3 elements of an abnormality of mentally functioning?
The effect of this section is that a person who kills or is a party to the killing of another is not to be convicted of murder if he was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which:
(a) arose from a recognised medical condition
(b) substantially impaired D’s ability to-
(i) understand the nature of his conduct
(ii) form a rational judgement
(iii) exercise self-control
(c) provides an explanation for D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing
In diminished responsibility who is the burden of proof placed on?
The defendant, but the defendant need only prove it on the balance of probabilities
What is the definition of diminished responsibility?
A partial defence to a charge of murder which reduces the offence to one of voluntary manslaughter under s 2 Homicide Act 1957 as amended by s 52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009
When did the law require the defendant to be suffering from an ‘abnormality of mind’?
Before the definition of diminished responsibility was amended by s 52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
In the case of R v Byrne what was the ‘abnormality of mind’ described as?
‘a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human being that the reasonable man would term it abnormal’
Was the case of R Byrne decided on the old definition of diminished responsibility?
Yes
What is the test for abnormality of mental functioning?
D’s mental functioning was so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal
What must the abnormality of mental functioning arise from?
A recognised medical condition
Does ‘recognised medical condition’ include both psychological and physical conditions?
Yes
What are some examples of psychological recognised medical conditions which affect mental functioning?
(1) depressive illness
(2) paranoia
(3) Battered Woman’s Syndrome
What are some examples of physical recognised medical conditions that’s affects mental functioning?
(1) epilepsy
(2) sleep disorders
(3) diabetes
Must there be medical evidence presented at trial proving the D’s recognised mental condition?
Yes
What affect must the abnormality of mental functioning have of the D’s mental responsibility?
The abnormality of mental functioning must substantially impair the D’s mental responsibility for his acts or omissions in doing or being party to the killing
What was ‘substantial’ held to mean in the case of R v Lloyd?
Substantial does not mean total, nor does it mean trivial or minimal, it is something in between and is for the jury to decide if the D’s mental responsibility is impaired substantially
When can a judge decide not to put forward the question of whether the D’s mental functioning was substantially impaired?
The judge can withdraw this point from the jury if there is no evidence on which a reasonable jury could conclude that the D’s mental responsibility was substantially impaired
Was the matter of substantial impairment decided in the cases of R v Byrne and R v Lloyd before the law was amended?
Yes