Diminished Responsibility Flashcards
VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
Intentional killing - there is AR and MR
BUT… circumstances - law regards as mitigating the gravity of the offence.
P
INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
D does NOT have MR for murder but killing still unlawful
R v Taylor: ‘unlawful killing without intent to kill or cause GBH’
R. v Anthony Mann
Loving husband - dementia - killed wife of many years:
CASE SHOWS RANGE OF DR CIRCUMSTANCES + DISCRETION IN SENTENCING.
‘The culpability of each D in DR manslaughter cases may sometimes be reduced to almost extinction, whilst in others it remains very high - depends on facts.’
S.2 Homicide Act 1957, as ammended by S.52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
s.b. page 28
Statutory auth. for defence of DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY =
1) Not to be convicted of murder if D suffered from ‘abnormality of mental functioning’
a) recognised medical condition
b) substantially impaired D’s ability to - 1A
c) provides an explanation for D’s …
1A: a) understand nature of conduct
b) form rational judgement c) exercise self-control
1B: = abnormality = explanation of Ds conduct if it causes his actions or IS A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO THEM.
2) For defence to prove
3) Convicted of manslaughter instead.
R. v PETER SUTCLIFFE (Yorkshire Ripper)
Example that court can still put the issue of murder/manslaughter conviction to jury where policy interests are at stake.
Were willing to accept DR - but jury wanted murder - due to nature of his crimes - public needed to see label of murderer
LABELLING
R v SANDERS [1991]
D - diabetes - killed wife brutally - planning.
Medical evidence - actions were a result of ‘abnormality of mental functioning’ - substantial impairment
BUT Ct rejected defence of DR - due to advance planning of the murder.
SHOWS THAT COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT MEDICAL EVIDENCE - JURY ENTITLED TO FIND MURDER CONVICTION.
R. v Dowds [2012]
D - very drunk stabbing.
Tried to rely on fact that alcoholism is a medially-recognised condition.
Argued ‘acute intoxication’ should also be extended to the definition of alcoholism (not an alcoholic but not having any control once consuming’.
C of A REJECTED - Not DR - even if a recognised condition - getting drunk in first place was voluntary.
SHOWS: EXISTENCE OF A REC. MEDICAL CONDITION IS A NECESSARY, BUT NOT ALWAYS SUFFICIENT, CONDITION TO INVOKE DEFENCE OF DR.
R. v SIMCOX [1964]
D - murder - DR - paranoia - medical evidence - not enough to be ‘susbtantial impairment’ as required by s.2(1)(b) of Homicide Act 1957
Was a more than trivial impairment - was moderate.
But needs to be substantial for defence to be made out.
R. v Golds [2014]
Authority: when assessing whether abnormality of mental functioning caused ‘substantial impairment’
JURY SHOULD BE GIVEN DIRECTION OF R. V SIMCOX
i.e. impairment might have modest impact (i.e. it IS more than trivial) - but yet still not substantial as required by s.2(1)(b)
R. v Ahluwhalia [1992]
RECOGNISED BATTERED WOMANS SYNDROME AS A DEPRESSIVE CONDITION THAT CAN SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF A PLEA OF DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY.
