LOSC/Dimin. Resp.

Question 1

R v Campbell 1997

Answer 1

D picked up hitchhiker, propositioned.
V hit D, he hit back.
V gurgled, blood from mouth.
D attempted strangulation, then hit V in throat with hockey stick.
Attack became progressively more frenzied.
Pleaded NG to murder, guilty to manslaughter by provocation.
Rejected, Zd convicted of murder.
Appealed w/ fresh evidence, medical developments.
D suffered epilepsy, affected reason.
Retrial meant provocation might succeed. Just decision.
Conviction quashed, retrial ordered.

Question 2

R v Duffy 1949

Answer 2

Textbook direction on provocation.
‘Some act, or series of acts, done by the dead man to the accused, which would cause in any reasonable person, and actually causes in the accused, a sudden and temporary loss of self control, rendering the accused so subject to passion as to make him or her for the moment not master of his mind.’

Question 3

R v Kiszko 1979

Answer 3

D stabbed V, an eleven y/o girl to death.
Had received treatment for anaemia and hypogonadism.
Had picked V up in car and masturbated over her.
Expert witness claimed treatments could cause extreme sexual and aggressive tendencies.
D sought diminished responsibility.
Jury convicted D of murder.
Appeal: Medical evidence uncontested, verdict unsafe.
Held: Jury entitled, indeed bound, to consider all facts.
Case did not depend entirely on medical evidence.
Application to appeal refused.

Question 4

R v Ahluwalia 1993

Answer 4

D killed V, her husband, by throwing petrol into his room and setting it alight.
Her act followed prolonged abuse, confirmed by medical reports.
She intended only to cause pain, to burn away his sin.
Jury returned murder.
Appealed on diminished responsibility.
Held: D suffered severe depression.
Evidence was available, not used.
Verdict unsafe.
Murder quashed, retrial ordered.

Question 5

R v Byrne 1960

Answer 5

D killed and mutilated the body of a young girl.
Evidence of borderline insanity uncontested.
D claimed diminished responsibility.
Judge directed that if D was otherwise normal the defence was not available.
Jury convicted D of murder.
Appeal: Assessment of abnormality is for the jury.
Judge removed it from them.
Held: A jury, correctly directed, would have afforded the defence.
Appeal allowed, manslaughter substituted.

Question 6

R v Clinton 2012

Answer 6

D killed V, his wife.
She had verbally abused him.
Kids, coward, infidelity all mentioned.
Judge withdrew LOSC, infidelity excluded.
D convicted of murder.
Appeal: Infidelity does not exclude LOSC based on other facts.
Eg. V rapes D’s sister.
What if taunts were untrue? Defies logic if lies are acceptable evidence when the truth isn’t.
Held: LOSC can’t be based on infidelity ALONE.
Appeal allowed, retrial ordered.

Question 7

R v Cox 1968

Answer 7

D killed wife.
Convicted of manslaughter, diminished responsibility.
Sentenced to life imprisonment, transfer to mental hospital under power of Secretary of State.
D appealed against sentence.
Held: Label of conviction important to D.
Appeal allowed.
D held under S60 of Mental Health Act 1959, not S72.

Question 8

R v Dunbar 1957

Answer 8

D killed 82y/o woman during burglary.
Psychiatrist gave evidence of psychopathy.
Judge directed using simple terms of act.
Jury returned capital murder.
Appeal: Direction on proof necessary.
Burden of defence less than prosecution.
Held: Directed properly, same verdict likely.
As difference is between life and death, appeal allowed.
Manslaughter substituted.

Question 9

R v Matheson 1958

Answer 9

D killed 15y/o boy.
Packed intestines in suitcase.
Hid remains.
Sent postcards to V’s mother.
Gave himself up to police.
Uncontested evidence of arrested development.
Jury returned murder.
Appeal: Verdict unreasonable, unsupported by evidence.
Held: Diminished responsibility uncontested.
Verdict understandable, revolting crime, but unsupported by evidence.
Manslaughter substituted.

Question 10

R v Richens 1994

Answer 10

V propositioned D’s gf while staying in the same flat.
V later told D she had ‘wanted it’(Later used as trigger for LOSC).
D stabbed V to death.
D and gf disposed of body, she left the country.
D denied knowledge to protect gf and parents.
Judge invited jury to consider whether lies probative of murder (Skilled liar, Pre-meditated?).
Jury returned murder.
Appeal: Misdirection on provocation and lies.
Held: LOSC need not be to point of not knowing what one is doing.
Judge should have also asked jury to consider whether D’s lies could be explained.
Linking lies to murder, not manslaughter, a material misdirection.
Murder quashed, manslaughter substituted.

Question 11

Di Duca 1959

Answer 11

D, knowing V to have available cash, attempted to steal from his home.
Caught by V, a large man w/ violent reputation.
D threw him off, hit him with washbasin three times, killing V.
Provocation failed.
D claimed diminished responsibility by way of alcoholic intoxication.
Judge directed that there was no evidence of abnormality of the mind.
Intoxication does not come under ‘injury’.
Judge’s direction sound, appeal dismissed.

Question 12

DPP v Camplin 1978

Answer 12

D, 15, killed V w/ chipati pan.
Claimed V had raped him and then laughed.
Judge directed, contrary to defence's submission, that a reasonable man be considered, not reasonable boy.
D convicted of murder.
Appealed on misdirection.
Allowed, substituting manslaughter.
DPP appealed, dismissed.
Jury entitled to consider all facts.
Judge erred in direction.
Murder rightly quashed.

Question 13

Hill v The Queen 2008

Answer 13

D joined V at house after drinking.
Fell asleep, awoke to find V in act of indecent assault.
Lashed out, V fell, hitting head.
Accepted evidence of strangulation it could not remember it.
Account not accepted, evidence of possible robbery.
D convicted of murder.
Later (14 years) revealed childhood abuse by foster father.
Supported by independent complaints/investigation.
Claimed flashback to abuse upon waking to V, similar experience.
Did not mention as was not asked, didn’t realise significance, embarrassed.
Held: No reasonable explanation for not advancing account if genuine.
Court will not admit evidence allowing D to change account in order to run different defence.
Appeal dismissed.

Question 14

R v Dowds 2012

Answer 14

D stabbed partner 60 times, killing her.
Both had been binge drinking.
Did not amount to alcoholism.
Contended that acute intoxication was a recognised medical condition.
Judge ruled that voluntary, temporary drunkenness incapable of founding diminished responsibility.
D convicted.
On appeal: Coroners and Justice Act 2009 intended to enable law to respond to developments in medicine and psychiatry, not alter law on voluntary intoxication.
Appeal dismissed.
Majewski & Wood considered.

Question 15

R v Khan 2010

Answer 15

D killed V w/ cricket bat.
Claimed to be elsewhere, but also to be suffering paranoid schizophrenia.
Medical evidence uncontested, D requested murder be withdrawn.
Judge refused, impairment determined by jury.
D convicted of murder.
Appeal: Judge should have withdrawn murder. Dismissed, crown contested defence, issues of fact for jury to consider.
Diminished responsibility dismissal unsupported by evidence. Dismissed, no simple test to determine mental responsibility.
Ample evidence to be unsatisfied on balance of probabilities.

Question 16

R v Lloyd 1965

Answer 16

D strangled his wife to death.
Sought diminished responsibility by depression.
Two doctors gave evidence.
Neither termed mental impairment ‘substantial.’
Judge directed jury to use common sense when considering whether D’s judgement was substantially impaired.
Jury returned murder.
Appeal: Substantial can mean real or considerable.
Judge misdirected.
Held: Judge clarified by context, no criticism to be made.
Appeal dismissed.

Question 17

R v Ramchurn 2010

Answer 17

D killed V, his cousin, after he began a sexual relationship w/ his wife.
Medical evidence called at trial.
Prosecution and defence diagnosed depression, neither stated substantial impairment of responsibility.
D convicted of murder.
Appeal: Judge gave two directions on ‘substantially.’
Held: Judge directed, then rephrased when asked for clarification by the jury.
Issuing same direction pointless.
No criticism, appeal dismissed.
Per curiam: Specimen directions useful, not binding on judges.
R v Lloyd referred to.

Question 18

R v Salmon 2005

Answer 18

D killed V, who had been sleeping w/ D’s husband, with a shotgun in the beauty salon she owned.
Psychiatric evidence of severe depression.
D convicted of murder.
Appeal: Summing up of expert evidence inadequate.
Held: No omissions fatal to verdict.
Jury entitled to conclude no diminished responsibility.
Appeal dismissed.

Question 19

R v Sanders 1991

Answer 19

D & V, both divorcees, lived together for over 5 years.
V moved away w/ her three sons.
D became badly afflicted w/ diabetes, severely reducing sight.
V cared for him, but took up w/ another man, T.
After V spent weekend w/ T, D considered suicide, writing notes to all but V (Evidence of intent).
V came to D on Monday, as usual, and told him of T, D claimed tauntingly (Provocation).
D killed V w/ hammer, attempted suicide.
Both prosecution and defence psychiatrists agreed depression substantially impairing resp.
Jury returned murder.
Appeal questioning summing up.
Held: Relationship, hammer blow, notes etc., all considered by jury alongside expert testimony.
Conviction safe.
Appeal dismissed.

Question 20

R v Sanders 2009

Answer 20

D sleeping rough, drinking heavily.
Subjected V to extreme violence.
Turned himself in to police.
Conceded killing w/ intend, claimed diminished responsibility due to alcohol dependency.
Defence supported by multiple physicians, divided over ‘disease’.
Judge directed that consumption must be totally involuntary for defence to lie.
Jury returned murder.
Appeal: Direction could be taken as every drink consumed must be voluntary, otherwise defence must be disregarded.
Held: Judge misdirected.
Appeal allowed, retrial ordered.

Question 21

R v Walker 2009

Answer 21

D, 70, killed wife w/ shotgun following argument about impending divorce.
Called 999, confessed, saying he was ‘Overcome w/ anger’.
Defence claimed D was suffering depression and provoked.
D’s daughter testified to breakdown of relationship.
Expert witness for prosecution challenged that of defence.
D’s witness did not diagnose depression until months after initial interview, murder itself contributed.
D convicted of murder.
Appeal: Evidence of DR uncontested.
Dismissed, plenty of challenging evidence.
Misdirection, jury cannot disregard uncontested evidence.
Dismissed.