Diminished Responsibility

Question 1

What is the act and section number for diminished responsibility?

Answer 1

Section 52 Coroners and Justices Act 2009

Question 2

What act did s.52 Coroners and Justices Act 2009 amend?

Answer 2

Section 2 Homicide Act 1957

Question 3

What is the definition for diminished responsibility?

Answer 3

“Where a person who kills or is a party to a killing, is not to be convicted of murder if that person was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning”

Question 4

What is the case for abnormality of mental functioning?

Answer 4

R vs Fairweather

Question 5

What is the POL from R vs Fairweather?

Answer 5

The jury didn’t think he was psychotic at the time of the attacks so the defence was rejected

Question 6

What is the case for recognised medical condition?

Answer 6

R vs Martin

Question 7

What is the POL from R vs Martin?

Answer 7

He had paranoid personality disorder and depression so he could use the defence

Question 8

What is a substantial impairment and what does it have to impair?

Answer 8

A substantial impairment stops the defendant to do one of the following:

1. Understand the nature of their conduct
2. To form a rational judgement (R vs Martin)
3. To exercise self-control (R vs Byrne)

Question 9

What is the POL from R vs Brown

Answer 9

The impairment must be substantial and not partial

Question 10

What is the case that states - The impairment must be substantial and not partial

Answer 10

R vs Brown

Question 11

What case was R vs Brown confirmed by?

Answer 11

R vs Simcox

Question 12

What did R vs Simcox state?

Answer 12

That the impairment cannot be that it just made it harder for the defendant to control themselves

Question 13

What is the final point that must be proven for DR?

Answer 13

The medical condition must provide an explanation for the defendants actions

Question 14

What is the case for explanation of the defendant’s conduct?

Answer 14

R vs Osbourne

Question 15

What is the POL from R vs Osbourne?

Answer 15

The drug taking and anger was the explanation for the conduct and not ADHD

Question 16

What is the POL from R vs Deitschmann?

Answer 16

The abnormality of the mind could still have been a substantial cause of the killing but not the intoxication

Question 17

What case states - The abnormality of the mind could still have been a substantial cause of the killing but not the intoxication

Answer 17

R vs Dietschmann

Question 18

What is the ruling on alcohol dependency syndrome?

Answer 18

The jury must only take into account the alcohol drunk in order to satisfy the dependency

Question 19

What is the POL from R vs Wood?

Answer 19

The defendant was suffering from alcohol dependency syndrome which was confirmed by 4 psychiatrists and is a recognised medical condition

Question 20

What case states - The defendant was suffering from alcohol dependency syndrome which was confirmed by 4 psychiatrists and is a recognised medical condition

Answer 20

R vs Wood