Partial Defence - Diminished Responsibility Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

All steps?

A

1) Abnormality
2) Substantially
3) Explains Ds act or omission in killing.
4) Conclusion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Intro is…?

A

Act + definition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Act for DR ?

A

s2 Homocide Act 1957 as amended by s52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Definition of DR + case?

A

D was suffering an abnormality of mental functioning from a medically recognised condition which substantially impaired his ability to one of three things and explains his act or omission in killing.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Step 1?

A

Abnormality of mental functioning.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

2 things for step 1 + cases?

A

A) Bryne “state of mind so different from that of ordinary humna beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal.
B) Recognised medical condition s52(1)(a) The abnormality of mental functioning must be caused by a “recognised medical condition”
Can include: chronic depression (Seers), battered wife syndrome (Ahuwalia) and alchol dependancy syndrome (Wood).
Must be medically proven and the jury will decide.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is Step 2?

A

Substantially impaired - ds ability to do one of three things must be substantially impaired. s52 (1)(b)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

3 things for step 2 + cases?

A

A) Understand the nature of his conduct or ;
B) Form a rational judgement or;
C) Excerise self control
- the impairment must be “important or weighty” (Golds)
- Ds substantial impairment cannot come from intoxication alone. (Egan, Dowds)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Step 3?

A

Explains Ds act or omission in killing. s52(1)(c)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

2 things for step 3 + cases?

A
  • Factual causation - “but for” (White)
  • Legal causation - more than minimal (Smith)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Step 4?

A

If defence succeeds Ds murder charge drops to volunatry maslaughter if fails D will still be charged with murder.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly