Fatal Offences-Voluntary manslaughter (diminished responsibility)

Question 1

What Act was diminished responsibility originally defined in?

Answer 1

Homicide Act 1957

Question 2

Which Act updated the definition of diminished responsibility?

Answer 2

Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Question 3

Definition of diminished responsibility.

Answer 3

A person who kills or is party to a killing is not to be convicted if the defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mental function which has 3 tests.

Question 4

1st test for abnormality of mental function.

Answer 4

1. Arose from a recognised medical condition

Question 5

2nd test for abnormality of mental function.

Answer 5

Substantially impaired the D’s ability to do one of the following:

-understand the nature of his conduct
-form a rational judgement
-exercise self-control

Question 6

3rd test for abnormality of mental function.

Answer 6

3. Provides an explanation for the D’s acts and omissions in doing the killing or being a party to the killing

Question 7

What does the 1st test mean will be needed?

Answer 7

Evidence from medical experts

Question 8

Give some examples of recognised medical conditions which often come up.

Answer 8

Depression
Post-natal depression
Alcohol Dependency Syndrome (ADS)
Paranoia
PTSD
Psychosis

Question 9

What would need to be done in the event of newly emerging medical conditions?

Answer 9

Defence would need to rely on their medical experts to show the court that the condition met the test

Question 10

Facts of Bryne (1960).

Answer 10

D was a sexual pyschopath who strangled a young woman, then mutilated her body.

Question 11

What did the case of Byrne (1960) examine?

Answer 11

The issue of “abnormality of mind”.

Question 12

When was Byrne?

Answer 12

1960

Question 13

What did the court say “abnormality of mind” is in Byrne (1960)?

Answer 13

“Abnormality of mind…means a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal…”

Question 14

Who decides whether the substantial in the second test is enough?

Answer 14

The jury as stated by the judge in Ramchurn (2010).

However the jury can request guidance to what it means

Question 15

What did the trial judge in Lloyd (1967) say substantial meant?

Answer 15

“Substantial does not mean total, that is to say, the mental responsibility need not be totally impaired, so to speak, destroyed altogether. At the other end of the scale substantial does not mean trivial or minimal. It means something in between.”

Question 16

Why can substantial not mean totally impaired?

Answer 16

Presumably because then the D would use the total defence of insanity.

Question 17

What did Golds (2014) conclude substantial meant?

Answer 17

More than something that would not make any great difference

Question 18

What does the 3rd test mean?

Answer 18

The defence will fail if the evidence suggests that the D would have killed anyways

Question 19

What does Dietschmann say about non-alcoholics?

Answer 19

If someone with a recognised medical condition kills when drunk, they can still use the partial defence of DR if all 3 tests are met even if they are non-alcoholics.

Question 20

What does Wood say about alcoholics?

Answer 20

If someone with Alcohol Dependency Syndrome (ADS) gets drunk and kills, they can claim this defence using the ADS as their recognised medical condition but the courts must only take into account involuntary drinking (drinking due to the ADS).

Question 21

What is the standard of proof for the partial defence of DR and who does it lie on?

Answer 21

On a balance of probabilities

Must be proven by the D who raises the defence