Diminished Responsibility

Question 1

Where is the concept of Diminished Responsibility defined in UK law?

Answer 1

Diminished Responsibility is set out in s 2(1) Homicide Act 1957 as amended by s52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Question 2

According to section 52, what must the defendant be able to demonstrate to establish a defense based on diminished responsibility?

Answer 2

An abnormality of mental functioning
Which arose from a recognized medical condition
And substantially impaired the defendant’s ability to
a. Understand the nature of their conduct, or
b. Form a rational judgment, or
c. Exercise self-control
The abnormality must provide an explanation for the defendant’s acts and omissions, i.e., there must be a causal link but it need not be the only one.

Question 3

What is the first requirement under section 52 for a defense based on diminished responsibility?

Answer 3

The defendant must demonstrate an abnormality of mental functioning.

Question 4

What is the second requirement under section 52 for a defense based on diminished responsibility?

Answer 4

Which arose from a recognized medical condition

Question 5

What is the Third requirement under section 52 for a defense based on diminished responsibility?

Answer 5

substantially impaired the defendant’s ability to
a. Understand the nature of their conduct, or
b. Form a rational judgment, or
c. Exercise self-control

Question 6

What is the Fourth requirement under section 52 for a defense based on diminished responsibility?

Answer 6

The abnormality must provide an explanation for the defendant’s acts and omissions, i.e., there must be a causal link but it need not be the only one.

Question 7

What must the abnormality of mental functioning come from according to section 52?

Answer 7

It must come from a recognized medical condition.

Question 8

Under section 52, what are the 3 things that abnormality of mental functioning must substantially impair the defendant’s abilities?

Answer 8

It must substantially impair the defendant’s ability to understand the nature of their conduct.

It must substantially impair the defendant’s ability to form a rational judgment.

It must substantially impair the defendant’s ability to exercise self-control.

Question 9

What link must be established between the abnormality of mental functioning and the defendant’s actions under section 52?

Answer 9

The abnormality must provide an explanation for the defendant’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing. i.e., there must be a causal link but it need not be the only one.

Question 10

What is necessary to prove under section 52 in relation to the defendant’s mental state?

Answer 10

It is necessary to prove the defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning.

Question 11

How is the abnormality of mental functioning defined and in which case?

Answer 11

abnormality is defined in the case of R v Byrne as an abnormality of mental functioning is a state of mind so different from that of the ordinary human being that a reasonable man would term it abnormal.

Question 12

What must the defendant be suffering from to use the defense of diminished responsibility?

Answer 12

The defendant must be suffering from a recognized medical condition (RMC).

Question 13

In an exam scenario, how is a recognized medical condition (RMC) often indicated?

Answer 13

The scenario often points to the defendant receiving some sort of treatment, e.g., for depression or alcohol dependence syndrome (ADS).

Question 14

Is it possible for a defendant to have more than one recognized medical condition (RMC)?

Answer 14

Yes, sometimes there is more than one RMC.

Question 15

Name 10 cases that can illustarte what is consdiered as Recognised Medicl Condition (RMC)

Answer 15

1. Campbell
2. R v Smith
3. R v Gittens
4. R v Swann
5. R v Ahluwalia
6. R v Hobson
7. Tandy
8. Dowds
9. Dietschmann
10. Woods

Question 16

Note 1 for Recognised Medical Condition

Answer 16

Whilst medical evidence is needed to support the claim the jury is not bound to accept medical evidence but the Act stresses the importance of psychiatric evidence.

Question 17

Can intoxication alone support a defense of diminished responsibility?

Answer 17

No, intoxication alone cannot support a defense of diminished responsibility (Tandy/Dowds).

Question 18

Can a defendant use the defense of diminished responsibility if they have a pre-existing mental disorder and are intoxicated?

Answer 18

Yes, if the defendant has a pre-existing mental disorder, intoxication does not prevent them from using the defense.

Question 19

Can Alcohol Dependence Syndrome be considered an abnormality of mental functioning (AMF) or a recognized medical condition (RMC)?

Answer 19

Yes, Alcohol Dependence Syndrome can be an AMF/RMC (Wood).

Question 20

Give an example where intoxication is acceptable in a diminished responsibility defense despite worsening the condition.

Answer 20

If a defendant already has depression and is intoxicated, the intoxication is acceptable even though it made things worse (Dietschmann).

Question 21

What does Substantial Mean

Answer 21

Substantial does not mean total but does mean more than trivial

Question 22

D’s ability is substantially impaired if it affects

Answer 22

Understanding the Nature of Conduct
Forming a Rational Judgement
Exercising Self-Control

The impairment must significantly impact one of these abilities.

Focus on the specific area of impairment in the context of the case.

Question 23

What are the case facts for Campbell

Answer 23

Facts: Campbell picked up a hitchhiker, a young woman, and attempted to rape her. When she resisted, he killed her by striking her with a weapon. Campbell claimed diminished responsibility, arguing that he was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the crime.
Outcome: The court considered psychiatric evidence and accepted that Campbell’s mental disorder substantially impaired his ability to exercise self-control. His conviction was reduced from murder to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

Question 24

What are the case facts for

Answer 24

R v Smith (1959)
Facts: Smith, suffering from a paranoid condition, killed his wife during an argument. He claimed diminished responsibility due to his mental condition.
Outcome: The court upheld the defense of diminished responsibility, recognizing that Smith’s mental condition significantly impaired his cognitive functions. His conviction was reduced from murder to manslaughter.

Question 25

What are the case facts for R v Gittens (1984)

Answer 25

Facts: Gittens, suffering from severe depression, killed his wife and stepdaughter. He had been drinking heavily and taking medication at the time of the killings. He argued that his mental illness and intoxication impaired his ability to understand his conduct and exercise self-control.

Outcome: The court accepted that Gittens’ depression and the effects of alcohol and medication substantially impaired his mental functioning. His conviction was reduced from murder to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

Question 26

What are the case facts for

Answer 26

R v Swann (1988)
Facts: Swann killed a woman during a schizophrenic episode. He argued that his mental illness impaired his ability to understand his actions.
Outcome: The court accepted the diminished responsibility defense, resulting in a manslaughter conviction.

Question 27

What are the case facts for R v Ahluwalia

Answer 27

Facts: Ahluwalia, a battered wife, killed her husband by setting him on fire after years of abuse. She argued diminished responsibility due to her mental state caused by the abuse.
Outcome: Her conviction for murder was reduced to manslaughter on appeal due to her mental condition.

Question 28

What are the case facts for R v Hobson

Answer 28

Facts: Hobson killed her abusive partner, arguing that she suffered from battered woman syndrome, which impaired her ability to understand her actions and exercise self-control.
Outcome: The court recognized battered woman syndrome as a legitimate factor for diminished responsibility. Hobson’s conviction was reduced from murder to manslaughter due to her impaired mental state.

Question 29

What are the case facts for R v Tandy

Answer 29

Facts: Tandy, an alcoholic, strangled her daughter after drinking heavily. She claimed diminished responsibility, arguing that her chronic alcoholism impaired her ability to exercise self-control.
Outcome: The court ruled that Tandy’s voluntary intoxication did not meet the criteria for diminished responsibility, maintaining her murder conviction. The judgment emphasized that alcoholism must result in an involuntary drinking compulsion to be considered.

Question 30

What are the case facts for Down [-

Answer 30

Facts: Dowds, a habitual binge drinker, killed his partner in a drunken rage. He argued diminished responsibility due to his acute intoxication at the time of the killing.
Outcome: The court held that voluntary acute intoxication alone does not constitute diminished responsibility. Dowds’ murder conviction was upheld, emphasizing that diminished responsibility requires a recognized medical condition.

Question 31

What are the case facts for R v Dowds (2012)

Answer 31

Facts: Dowds, a heavy binge drinker, killed his partner in a drunken rage. He argued diminished responsibility due to his acute intoxication.
Outcome: The court held that voluntary intoxication alone does not constitute diminished responsibility, upholding the murder conviction.

Question 32

What are the case facts for R v Dietschmann

Answer 32

Facts: Dietschmann, suffering from a depressive condition and grief, killed a man while heavily intoxicated. He claimed that his mental condition, not the alcohol, led to the killing.

Outcome: The court accepted that Dietschmann’s depressive condition significantly impaired his mental functioning, despite his intoxication. His conviction was reduced from murder to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

Question 33

What are the case facts for R v Wood

Answer 33

Facts: Wood, an alcoholic, killed a man during a drunken rage. He claimed diminished responsibility due to his chronic alcoholism, which he argued impaired his ability to exercise self-control.

Outcome: The court acknowledged that Wood’s alcoholism was a significant factor affecting his mental state. His conviction was reduced from murder to manslaughter, recognizing his impaired self-control due to chronic alcoholism.

Question 34

What are the case facts for R v Seers

Answer 34

Facts: Seers killed his wife after separating from her. He claimed diminished responsibility due to suffering from chronic depression, which he argued impaired his ability to form rational judgments and exercise self-control.

Outcome: The court accepted the defense of diminished responsibility, recognizing that Seers’ chronic depression substantially impaired his mental functioning. His conviction was reduced from murder to manslaughter.

Question 35

Step by step Dimished Responsiblity AO1 ?

Answer 35

s52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009:

1. Abnormality of Mental Functioning (AMF): Must exist (Byrne).
2. Recognised Medical Condition (RMC):
   Required (Seers, Gittens, Alawalia).
   Medical expert evidence crucial; if two doctors confirm RMC, murder charge withdrawn from jury.
3. Substantial Impairment:
   Must be grossly impaired (Lloyd); more than trivial.
   Inability to:
   Understand nature of the act.
   Form rational judgment.
   Exercise self-control.
4. Explanation for Acts:
   Must provide causal link.
   Voluntary intoxication not RMC, but Alcohol Dependence Syndrome (ADS) is accepted.