Diminished Responsibility Flashcards
Diminished responsibility Definition
Diminished responsibility is defined under section 2 homicide Act 1957. S.2(1) “a person who kills another is not be convicted of murder if defendant was suffering from abnormality of mental functioning which arises from a recognised medical condition which substantially impairs defendant’s ability to understand nature of their conduct. Or form a rational judgement or exercise self control. This is a partial defence this means that it is accepted by the jury then the conviction will be reduced to manslaughter
Abnormality of mental functioning
Abnormality of mental functioning, in the case of R V Byrne, the court of appeal described this as a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal
This abnormality of mental functioning must arise from arise from a recognised medical condition
This abnormality of mental functioning must arise from arise from a recognised medical condition this was first introduced into S.2 of the 1957 homicide Act by the 2009 Act. This thus recognised medical condition is wide enough to cover psychological and physical conditions. Any recognised mental disorder and any physical condition which affects mental functioning. An example of a medical condition that can be recognised as a defence is depression, this is seen in the case of R V Seers.
Under S52(1b), the abnormality of mental functioning must have substantially impaired the defendant’s abilit
Under S52(1b), the abnormality of mental functioning must have substantially impaired the defendant’s ability And established in S53(1a) the ability to understand to understand the nature of his conduct, ability to form a rational judgement and the ability to exercise self-control. This can be seen in the case of R v Byrne, the appeal court said that the question of whether the impairment was substantial was one of degree and that it was the jury to decide. In R V Lloyd, it was held that substantial does not mean total, nor does it mean trivial or minimal
However as seen in the case of R v Dowds, intoxication only cannot support a defence of Diminished responsibility
causation
The actus reus must have caused the death and causation must be established. There are two types of causation. Factual causation and legal causation. For the defendant to be liable for murder and the cause of the death, both elements need to be proved in order for the defendant to be the cause of the death. Factual causation, it must be proved that the defendant is the factual cause of the death. This is tested with the but for test.that but-for the defendant’s conduct, the victim would not have died. The case of R v WHITE (1910) - where the ‘but-for’ cause was the heart attack not the poison Legal causation is establishing that the defendant is the more than the minimal cause of the death as seen in R v Kimsey. It is considered the more minimal cause .
