DR

Question 1

r v dowds

Answer 1

intoxication on its own cannot give the defence of diminished responsibility

Question 2

r v gold

Answer 2

not all impairment that is more than trivial will suffice as substantial

Question 3

r v kay

Answer 3

a defendant cannot rely on having a disease of the mind such a schizophrenia if the reason their ability has been impaired is because they’re intoxicated

Question 4

r v wood

Answer 4

alcohol dependency syndrome could class as an abnormality of mental functioning

Question 5

r v dietschmann

Answer 5

if the abnormality of mental functioning impaired the Ds ability regardless of the intoxication they could rely on diminished responsibility

Question 6

diminished responsibility

Answer 6

a person who kills or is a party to the killing of another is not to be convinced of murder if he was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning
homicide act 1957 amended by the coroners act 2009

Question 7

substantially impaired

Answer 7

the abnormality of mental functioning must substantially impair Ds mental responsibility for this actions or omissions in the killing

Question 8

abnormality of mental functioning / r v byrne

Answer 8

a state of mental functioning so different from that of the ordinary human being that the reasonable man would deem it abnormal

Question 9

r v tandy

Answer 9

being an alcoholic isn’t an abnormality of mental functioning

Question 10

r v lloyd

Answer 10

does not mean trivial or minimal it is something between and for the jury to decide