Diminished Responsibility [Murder Partial Defences] Flashcards
Under which Act of Parliament is the defence defined?
First set out in s2 Homocide Act 1957 and later amended by s52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009
What is the FIRST element?
Under s52(1), D must have had an AMF. There is no legal definition at the moment but Lord Parker used R v Byrne to define it as ‘a state of mind so different to that of normal human beings, the reasonable person would deem it abnormal’.
What is the SECOND element?
Under s52(1)(a), D’s AMF must have been caused by a RMC. This means the condition must e recognised by the medical profession and be backed up by medical evidence. There is no definitive list of RMCs but the World Health Organisation’s International Classification for Diseases (ICD-11) is often used.
What is the THIRD element?
The case of Golds says that substantially should ‘be given its ordinary everyday meaning’ but the case of Squelch says it should mean ‘less than total, more than trivial’.
D’s AMF should substantially impair their ability to either understand the nature of their conduct, when D doesn’t know what they are doing under (Dietchman), form a rational judgement, when D cannot tell right from wrong under (Alhuwalia), or exercise self-control, when the AMF limits D’s extent to which they can control their actions (Byrne).
What is the FOURTH element?
Under s52(1)(c), the AMF must also provide an explanation as to why the D killed the victim.
What if the defendant is INTOXICATED?
If the D is voluntarily intoxicated, then they can’t raise the defence (Dowds).
Id D is intoxicated with an AMF, R v Dietchman states that ‘the court must ignore the impact of the drink/drugs and consider whether D would’ve killed the victim if sober’.
If D suffers from Alcohol Dependency Syndrome, when prolonged drinking leads to brain damage rendering D addicted, then this could be enough for DR (Wood).
