Diminished Responsibility Template

Question 1

D has the AR and MR of murder

Answer 1

• So a potential defence that may be available is diminished responsibility.
• This is a specific deterrence created by S2 of the Homicide Act 1957 and amended by S52 of the Coroners and Justice act 2009.

Question 2

Requirements

Answer 2

There are four requirements for D to prove on the balance of probabilities.

Question 3

Abnormality of mental functioning

Answer 3

• Replaces abnormality of mind which was described in R v Byrne as a state of mind so different from that of an ordinary human being that the reasonable man would deem it abnormal.
• This definition allows a wider spectrum of mental illnesses.
  Application: what is D doing that’s abnormal?

Question 4

Conduct

Answer 4

The conduct must come from a recognised medical condition
APPLICATION: what is the recognised medical condition

Question 5

Depression
Alcohol dependency

Answer 5

• Depression is a recognised medical condition.
• Alcohol dependency syndrome is a recognised medical condition, R v Woods.

Question 6

The abnormality of mental functioning

Answer 6

• Has to be enough to substantially impair D’s responsibility for their actions.
• The jury look at the degree to which D was unable to understand the nature of their conduct or form a rational judgement or excercise self control.
• R v Golds confirms the meaning of substantial should be left to the jury however if further help is required the jury should be directed that substantial means ‘big’ or ‘alrge’.
  APPLICATION: if no alcohol or drugs involved state which of the 3 requirements is satisfied above and why

Question 7

If alcohol is involved…

Answer 7

Intoxication must generally be disregarded.
R v Diestmann confirmed that the relevant question for the jury would be ‘despite the intoxication is Ds ability to do….substantially impaired?’
APPLICATION: state whether Ds ability to do 1/3 requirements is substantially impaired despite alcohol/drugs.

Question 8

Finally

Answer 8

• D must show that the abnormality of mental functioning provided an explanation for Ds conduct.
• The defence wont succeed where Ds mental condition made no difference to his conduct.
  APPLICATION: explain how D’s mental condition makes a difference to his conduct.
  D would be guilty of manslaughter on the rounds of diminished responsibility.