Fatal offences - Voluntary Manslaughter Diminished responsibility

Question 1

Where is diminished responsibility set out?

Answer 1

It is set out in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

Question 2

What is the basis idea within diminished responsibility?

Answer 2

It is the idea that a person who kills/is party to a killing will not be convicted of murder if they are suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning.

Question 3

What are the 3 aspects that link to proving abnormality of mental functioning/ what makes it’s successful for the defence to put forward?

Answer 3

1) It must have arose from a recognised medical condition.
2)Substantially impairs the D’s ability to (1/3)
- understand the nature of his conduct
- form a rational judgement
- exercise self-control
AND
3) Must provide an explanation for the D’s acts/omissions in doing/ being party to the killing.

Question 4

Who is the burden of proof on?

Answer 4

The burden of proof is on the defendant on a balance of probabilities.

Question 5

When there is an unchallenged medical condition, what should the judge do?
Name a case.

Answer 5

The judge should remove the charge of murder from the jury as shown in R v Brennan (2014).

Question 6

What is meant by an abnormality of mental functioning and which case defined it?

Answer 6

It was defined in Byrne (1960) and defined as “a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it as abnormal”.

Question 7

What happened in the case of Byrne (1960)?

Answer 7

The D was a sexual psychopath who strangled the victim and then mutilated her body. Medical evidence proved he had a condition that left him unable to control his desires. He was convicted of murder but the CoA quashed it and substituted it for voluntary manslaughter.

Question 8

Abnormality of mental functioning must come from a recognised medical condition, where can these be found and name some.

Answer 8

The World Health Organisations International classification of diseases.
Some include: paranoia, clinical depression and psychotic disorders (Byrne 1960).

Question 9

To support the claim of diminished responsibility there must be medical evidence, who must be satisfied that the medical condition caused the abnormality?

Answer 9

The jury must be satisfied that the medical issue stated was the likely cause of the abnormality.

Question 10

(2nd Aspect) A judge doesn’t have to define the word ‘substantial’ when discussing impairment, when would the judge choose to?

Answer 10

A judge would define the word when there is a risk that the jury will not/is not understanding the word/its’ application.

Question 11

When a judge chooses to define what ‘substantial impairment’ means, how is it defined?

Answer 11

It is defined that “an impairment must be more than merely trivial and it means big or large”.

Question 12

When may an individual not be able to form a rational judgement (under aspect 2)?

Answer 12

People who suffer from mental disorders such as paranoia or schizophrenia are often unable to make rational choices and this is seen within the law.

Question 13

When applying to the scenario, how many of the 3 parts under the D having an impaired ability must be proven?

Answer 13

At least 1/3 must be proven to pass this.

Question 14

In order for the abnormality of mental functioning to provide an explanation for the killing, when will the defence fail? (aspect 3)

Answer 14

The defence will fail if the recognised medical condition wouldn’t make a difference to their behaviour/ if they would have killed regardless.

Question 15

Does the abnormality of mental functioning have to be the only factor in the killing? (aspect 3)

Answer 15

No, there can be multiple factors BUT it must be a significant factor.

Question 16

When does the defence of diminished responsibility become more complicated?

Answer 16

It becomes more complicated when the D is intoxicated.

Question 17

What are the 3 possibilities to consider when the D is intoxicated?

Answer 17

1) The D was intoxicated at the time of the killing and attempts to use the defence of diminished responsibility.
- Intoxication on its’ own doesn’t fall under the defence of diminished responsibility.
2) The D was intoxicated at the time of killing and also has a pre-existing abnormality of mental functioning.
3) The intoxication is due to an addiction.
- Alcohol dependency syndrome can be used for the defence of diminished responsibility. (Shown in Woods 2008)

Question 18

What was the 3 part test established when the D suffers from Alcohol Dependency Syndrome?

Answer 18

1) Was the D suffering from an abnormality of mind? - Just because the D has ADS doesn’t amount to an abnormality, nature and extent should be considered.
2) IF SO was the abnormality due to ADS?
3) IF SO was the D’s mental responsibility substantially impaired?

Question 19

What is the importance of the case of R v Dietschmann (2003)?

Answer 19

This case is used when the D was intoxicated at the time of the killing AND also suffered a pre-existing abnormality of mental functioning.
In this case, the D killed the V after the V disrespected the memory of a recently killed family member. The D suffered from depression and was severely drunk during the killing and it was held he was guilty of manslaughter not murder.

Question 20

How should you conclude within an exam question?

Answer 20

Would the evidence given within the scenario work to reduce the murder charge to manslaughter IN YOUR OPINION.