Diminished Responsibility Flashcards
Created by
Homicide Act 1957 S2
Amended by CJA 2009 s52
S2(3) HA 1957
- The defence downgrades the offence from a murder to a voluntary manslaughter
S2(2) HA
- Burden of proof is on the DEFENDANT
Elements of DR
- Suffering from an abnormality of mental function
- Which arises from a recognised mental condition
- Impairs D’s ability to do certain things
- Causal link between abnormality and act
R v Byrne
- 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
Arising from a recognised medical condition
- Can be physical
- Can be mental
R v Reynolds
PMS was a recognised mental condition
R v fenton
- Hate, jealousy, bad temper etc are not mental conditions
Impairement of D’s ability to (as defined by law commission)
- Understand nature of conduct
- Form rational judgment
- Exercise self control
R v Lloyd
- Impairement must be more than trivial or minimal
R v Simcox
Need not be a complete impairment of mental functioning
R v Dietschmann
- Must be a causal link between abnormality ad the act
Causal link judged from
Medical evidence
However ultimately the ury’s decision
Diminished responsibility and intoxication
- 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
R v Dietschmann (intoxicatino)
- Despite intoxication was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which impaired his mental responsibility for the act
R v Tandy
- if the D is an ADS sufferer and is drunk then the D’s intoxication can only b considered if intoxication judged involuntary
R v Wood
- 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- Voluntary or involuntary distinction is outdated
R v Stewart
- 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
R v Dowds
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
R v Campbell
Dr not available for a charge of attempted murder
Law commissions s2(1)(a) imapirements
- understand nature of his conduct
- form a rational judgement
- exercise self control
Causal link between abnormality and act. Ultimately the jury decision. Case?
Peter Sutcliffe
