DR

Question 1

Def of DR

Answer 1

Anyone that suffers from a abnormality of mental functioning that arose from a RMC that substantially impaires Ds ability to understand the nature of his conduct, form a rational judgement or exercise self control and this must provide an explanation for the killing can use the defence of diminished responsibility

Question 2

Abnormality of mental functioning

Answer 2

R V Byrne- defines abnormality of mental functioning as ‘a state of mind so different from the ordinary beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal’

Question 3

Where must the abnormality of mental functioning come from

Answer 3

A RMC eg schizophrenia, depression

Question 4

Who decides weather Ds abilities are impaired

Answer 4

The jury decides weather Ds abilities are substantially impaired key case of Lyod decided the term did not mean “total nor trivial”

Question 5

What does S2(1A) state

Answer 5

That Ds abilities must be substantially impaired to understand the nature of his conduct + form a rational judgement or exercise self control

Question 6

What must the Abnormality of mental functioning provide

Answer 6

It must provide an explanation for Ds conduct as to why they killed V, may not be the only reason but it must be significant

Question 7

Rule if D is just intoxicated but no ev of a RMC

Answer 7

No defence

Question 8

D was intoxicated and had a AMF

Answer 8

Addressed in R V Dietschman asks the jury “has D satisfied you, despite the drink his abnormality of mental functioning substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts”

Question 9

D was intoxicated due to ADS

Answer 9

If they have ADS it will be successful as it’s a RMC

R V Woods-conviction reduced to manslaughter