Defences - Voluntary Manslaughter - Diminished Responsibility

Question 1

Diminished Responsibility

Effect of Defence

Answer 1

If established, defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter

Question 2

Homicide Act 1957 s2(2)

Proof

Diminished Responsibility

Answer 2

Burden of Proof - Defendant to prove defence on a balance of probabilities

Question 3

HA 1957 s2(1)

Elements of Defence

Diminished Responsibility

Answer 3

• Was D suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning?
• Which arises from a recognised medical condition
• Which substantially impairs the defendant’s ability to do certain things
• And which provides an explanation for D’s acts and omissions in killing
• R v Golds - [2016] UKSC 61: all four elements must be satisfied

Question 4

R v Byrne [1960]

Abnormality of Mental Functioning

Diminished Responsibility

Answer 4

State of mind so different to that of a normal human being that the reasonable person would term it abnormal – looking for physical evidence / quirk of behaviour

Question 5

R v Dowds [2011]

Arising from a recognised medical condition

Diminished Responsibility

Answer 5

• Recognised medical condition is a starting point, but doesn’t guarantee the defendant will succeed. Has to be a starting point though.
• Dowds argued suffering from acute intoxication (recognised in IDC and DSM) as both regular binge drinkers, but not addicted to alcohol – killed his partner while binge drinking – as was listed, defence was satisfied – CoA reviewed and concluded that voluntary intoxication doesn’t assist is establishing a defence to criminal defences – changes made to diminished responsibility were not intended to change this initial standpoint.
• Note: could be physical or psychological condition
• Requires medical evidence

Question 6

Substantial impairment of D’s ability

S2(1)(A) HA 1957

Diminished Responsibility

Answer 6

Substantial impairment of D’s ability to:

• To understand the nature of his conduct; or
  
  • A 10 year-old-boy left to play very violent video games for hours of his life, loses his temper and kills another child, not understanding that they cannot be revived later
• To form a rational judgment; or
  
  • Woman suffering from PTSD as a result of violent abuse from her husband comes to believe that burning him to death is the only way to rid the world of his sins.
  • Mentally sub-normal boy believes he must follow his older brother’s instructions, even if that involves killing, as he would never allow him to do something wrong
  • Depressed man gives into his terminally ill spouse’s request to kill her as he cannot think of anything else until he gives into her requests
• To exercise self control
  
  • A man saying the devil takes control of him and implants in him a desire to kill, a desire that must be acted on before he will go away
• Above listed in S 2(1A)

Question 7

R v Golds [2016]

Substantial Impairment

Diminished Responsibility

Answer 7

• ‘Substantial’ impairment must be caused by the abnormality of mental functioning
• Substantial” impairment – appreciably or significantly impairs ability beyond something that is merely more than trivial or minimal - medical evidence important
• A causal link between the abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognized medical condition and the killing must be established.

Question 8

R v Brennan

Role of Medical Experts

Diminished Responsibility

Answer 8

• Dr can comment on all four elements of defence
• Where medical experts disagree, jury must decide between them
• Where defence expert evidence is unopposed in supporting defence, jury should only reject it if there is evidence to support a different conclusion
  
  • In Brennan, there was evidence of a degree of planning by defendant, but expert did deal with this and was insufficient and didn’t detract from her standpoint of how the defence worked

Question 9

R v Dietschmann [2003]

Intoxication

Diminished Responsibility

Answer 9

Where Intoxication independent of the abnormality of mental functioning jury should go through all 4 elements of defence and find out if satisfied that the abnormality of mental functioning identified was a cause of the defendant’s actions

Question 10

R v Tandy [1989]

Intoxication

Diminished Responsibility

Answer 10

Where Intoxication linked to the abnormality of mind: alcoholism needed to satisfy the jury that every drink taken was the result of a recognised mental condition. Any evidence to indicate voluntary choice, the defence couldn’t work. Very harsh.

Question 11

R v Stewart [2009]

Intoxication

Diminished Responsibility

Answer 11

Overruled decision in R v Tandy

Where Intoxication linked to the abnormality of mind: alcoholism approach is same as set out in R v Deitchmann:

• Is there evidence of abnormality of mental functioning?
• Is there a medical cause for this? If there is clear evidence of ADS, then this requirement is likely to be satisfied.
• Does the abnormality impair D’s abilities? Consider:
  
  • extent and seriousness of dependency
  • extent to which ability to control drinking was reduced
  • defendant capable of abstinence?
  • For how long?
  • Was there a reason to get drunk or drink more than usual (e.g. bday)
  • (look at pattern of drinking leading up to incident)

Question 12

R v Campbell [1997]

Attempted Murder

Loss of Control and Diminished Responsibility

Answer 12

Loss of Control and Diminished responsibility are not available as a defence to a charge of attempted murder