Diminished responsibility Flashcards
The defence is set out in s2(1) of the Homocide Act as amended by s52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The effect of this section is that:
A person who kills or is a party to the killing of another is not to be convicted of murder if he was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which:
(a) arouse from a recognised medical condition
(b) substantially impaired D’s ability to:
- understand the nature of his conduct,
- form a rational judgement,
- exercise self-control and
(c) provides an explanation for D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing
What is meant by ‘abnormality of mental functioning’?
Before s52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 amended the definition of DR, the phrase used was ‘abnormality of mind’. In Byrne (1960) the CofA described this as ‘state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal’.
Although this case was on the old definition, it is likely that the courts will still use the same standard of abnormality. So the test will probably be that D’s mental functioning was so difference from that of ordinary beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal/
Under s2(1) of the Homicide Act 1957, as amended, the cause of the abnormality of mental functioning must arise from a ‘recognised medical condition’
This is wide enough to cover both psychological and physical conditions - depression, schizophrenia
The abnormality of mental functioning must substantially impair the D’s mental responsibility for his acts or omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.
In Lloyd (1967) it was held that substantial does not mean total, nor does it mean trivial or minimal. It is something in between and it’s for the jury to decide if the D’s mental responsibility is impaired, and if so, whether it is substantially impaired
