Diminished Responsibility

Question 1

Created by

Answer 1

Homicide Act 1957 S2

Amended by CJA 2009 s52

Question 2

S2(3) HA 1957

Answer 2

• The defence downgrades the offence from a murder to a voluntary manslaughter

Question 3

S2(2) HA

Answer 3

• Burden of proof is on the DEFENDANT

Question 4

Elements of DR

Answer 4

1. Suffering from an abnormality of mental function
2. Which arises from a recognised mental condition
3. Impairs D’s ability to do certain things
4. Causal link between abnormality and act

Question 5

R v Byrne

Answer 5

• An abnormality of mental functioning is something that is so different from that of normal people that the ordinary person would term it abnormal
• In the case of Byrne the D attacked, mutilated, strangled and sexually assaulted a young girl

Question 6

Arising from a recognised medical condition

Answer 6

• Can be physical

- Can be mental

Question 7

R v Reynolds

Answer 7

PMS was a recognised mental condition

Question 8

R v fenton

Answer 8

• Hate, jealousy, bad temper etc are not mental conditions

Question 9

Impairement of D’s ability to (as defined by law commission)

Answer 9

• Understand nature of conduct
• Form rational judgment
• Exercise self control

Question 10

R v Lloyd

Answer 10

• Impairement must be more than trivial or minimal

Question 11

R v Simcox

Answer 11

Need not be a complete impairment of mental functioning

Question 12

R v Dietschmann

Answer 12

• Must be a causal link between abnormality ad the act

Question 13

Causal link judged from

Answer 13

Medical evidence

However ultimately the ury’s decision

Question 14

Diminished responsibility and intoxication

Answer 14

• Intoxication is not an abnormality of mental functioning and intoxication must be considered independently of DR
• Intoxication can only be considered as part of DR if the D suffers from ADS

Question 15

R v Dietschmann (intoxicatino)

Answer 15

• Despite intoxication was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which impaired his mental responsibility for the act

Question 16

R v Tandy

Answer 16

• if the D is an ADS sufferer and is drunk then the D’s intoxication can only b considered if intoxication judged involuntary

Question 17

R v Wood

Answer 17

• If D suffers from ADS and is intoxicated thus impairing mental function the defence may be available
• If ADS can be judged to cause the intoxication then the intoxication can be viewed as an abnormality
• Voluntary or involuntary distinction is outdated

Question 18

R v Stewart

Answer 18

• If the D suffers from ADS then the impact this has on mental functioning can be judged from;
  
  • The extent/seriousness of ADS
  • The extent to which ability to control drinking was reduced
  • Whether the D was capable of abstinence
  • Any special reason for drinking
  • Consider defendant’s pattern of drining in the days before the killing

Question 19

R v Dowds

Answer 19

Acute voluntary intoxication is not sufficient for DR as not judged to be a recognised spychological condition, despite DSMIV’s inclusion
- Habitual binge drinking is not ADS

Question 20

R v Campbell

Answer 20

Dr not available for a charge of attempted murder

Question 21

Law commissions s2(1)(a) imapirements

Answer 21

• understand nature of his conduct
• form a rational judgement
• exercise self control

Question 22

Causal link between abnormality and act. Ultimately the jury decision. Case?

Answer 22

Peter Sutcliffe