Homicide - voluntary manslaughter - diminished responsibility

Question 1

What is diminished responsibility?

Answer 1

D has MENS REA and ACTUS REUS for MURDER but is able to plead a PARTIAL DEFENCE

Question 2

Definition for diminished responsibility (requirements) (statute and requirements)

Answer 2

• Section 52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 inserted new definition of diminished responsibility into s2 Homicide Act 1957
  1. D was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning
  2. Arose from recognised medical condition
  3. Substantially impaired D’s ability
  4. Provides explanation for D’s acts and omissions in doping or being party to killing

Question 3

Diminished responsibility - D was suffering from abnormality of mental functioning (2)

Answer 3

• Byrne (OLD LAW)
  o A state of mind so different to that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal – interpreted overly generously
• Brennan (NEW LAW)
  o Much stricter as requires jury needing expert guidance as to whether there is an abnormality of mental functioning
  o Expert evidence recognised schizotypal disorder and emotionally unstable person disorder so could plead diminished responsibility

Question 4

Diminished responsibility - Arose from recognised medical condition (8)

Answer 4

• Consultation Paper on Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide
  o Encourage defences to be grounded in a valid medical diagnosis
• Dowds
  o Voluntary acute intoxication was recognised medical condition but since law takes strict approach on intoxication, it was not sufficient
• Foye
  o Severe dissocial or psychopathic personality recognised as abnormality of mental functioning
  o However had planned and intended to kill victim so could not establish impairment part of DR
• Squelch
  o Paranoid personality disorder recognised medical condition
  o However, brought knife to work so planned to kill colleague suspicious of therefor experts disagreed over substantial impairment and convicted of murder
• Webb
  o Adjustment disorder recognised
  o Webb became carer of wife and she expressed wanted to die so helped her take concoction of tablets and alcohol to refused to let her wake up – was able to plead DR
• Beaver
  o Early onset dementia and adjustment disorder
• Brown
  o PTSD recognised
• Conroy
  o Autistic spectrum conditions recognised

Question 5

Diminished responsibility - substantially impaired D’s ability

Answer 5

• Ramchurn
  o Jury should apply own understanding of substantial
• Brown (Robert)
  o Less than total but more than minimal
• Golds
  o Substantial means important or weighty – LEADING CASE
• Squelch
  o Judges should not define substantial, instead allow jury to read definition in legislation and make own determination

Question 6

Diminished responsibility - provides explanation fro D’s acts and omissions in doing or being party to the killing (1)

Answer 6

• S2(1B) Homicide Act 1957
  o provides an explanation if it causes or is a significant contributory factor in causing D to carry out that conduct

Question 7

DR and intoxication (6)

Answer 7

• Tandy
  o Where drinking is involuntary or craving irresistible defence of DR might apply – only drank 9/10 bottle of vodka, would have needed to drink all of bottle to prove craving was irresistible
• Wood
  o Alcoholism short of brain damage could give rise to the defence depending on the extent and nature of the illness
  o Giving into a craving is not involuntary intoxication
• Bunch
  o Need medical expert evidence to back up claim of alcohol dependency
• Dowds
  o voluntary acute intoxication is not capable of being relied upon to found diminished responsibility
• Dietschmann
  o Where D is intoxicated but also suffers from abnormality of mental functioning, if D satisfies that without the alcohol intoxication, his abnormality of mental functioning substantially impaired his responsibility for the acts, he would be guilty of manslaughter – abnormality does not have to be sole cause of killing
• R v Joyce & Kay
  o If an abnormality of mental functioning arose from voluntary intoxication, and not from a recognised medical condition, an accused could not avail himself of the partial defence
  o If without the intoxication, the recognised medical condition would not have caused them to kill, cannot raise DR defence

Question 8

Critical commentary for diminished responsibility (3)

Answer 8

• Clough
  o Mercy killers would have to prove have a recognised medical condition to rely on partial defence of diminished responsibility which cannot always prove – unfair for them to be labelled as murderers
  o However, allowing mercy killers to rely on DR would make it too easy and would be an abuse of the defence for those killing for inheritance etc
• Kennefick
  o Change from ‘abnormality of mind to ‘abnormality of mental functioning caused by a recognised medical condition’ in the law meant requirement of recognised medical condition makes it more mechanical when deciding who does and doesn’t qualify for successful plea – should be more flexibility to allow for other circumstances such as mercy killing ect
• Mackay
  o There is concern that the number of successful pleas for Dr could continue to fall as the scope is a lot narrower with introduction of recognised medical condition making it harder to plead – 109 in 1979 to 39 in 2005