Vol MS - Diminished Responsibility Flashcards
Diminished responsibility
Diminished responsibility is a voluntary manslaughter, so it is a defence, not an offence, meaning there is no actual reus or mens rea required.
Diminished responsibility is a partial defence to murder, and reduces a murder conviction to one of manslaughter.
S52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 amends s2 of the Homicide Act 1957 and provides a 4 stage test for DM:
1) Was the D suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning?
2) If so, has this arisen from an unrecognized medical condition?
3) If so, had it substantially impaired their ability to: understand the nature of their conduct or form rationale judgment or exercise self control (or a combination)?
4) Does it thus explain their behaviour?
Abnormality of mental functioning
This means their state of mind was so different from that of ordinary human beings that the ‘reasonable person’ would term it abnormal.
Whether it covers the ability to exercise willpower or to control physical acts in accordance with rationale judgment. It’s a question for the jury.
Recognized medical condition
These medical conditions can be found in the World Health Organization’s ‘International Classification of Diseases’.
However, R v Dowds states that just because a recognized medical condition appears on the list, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is capable of being relied upon to show abnormality of mental functioning
Impairment must be substantial
There must be evidence of this and it must be raised by defence from the D. The abnormality of mental functioning must have substantially impaired the D’s ability to:
- understand the nature of the D’s conduct
- form a rationale judgement
- exercise self-control
Does thus explain their behaviour
Abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for the D’s behaviour, if it was a significant contributory factor in causing the D to act as they did. It doesn’t need to be the only cause, but it must be more than a merely trivial factor.
The defence should not succeed where the D’s condition made no difference to their behaviour and they would have killed regardless of their mental condition.
Burden of proof
The D has to prove diminished responsibility on the balance of probabilities - the civil standard
R v Brennan
Medical evidence
Where there is unchallenged medical evidence, the judge should withdraw the charge of murder from the jury
R v Dowds
Recognized medical conditions
States that just because a recognized medical condition appears on the list, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is capable of being relied upon to show abnormality of mental functioning
R v Golds
Substantial
The court should leave interpretation of the word ‘substantial’ to the jury, but can advice that substantial means large
R v Simcox
Substantial
Impairment must be more than minimal or trivial
R v Lloyd
Substantial
The impairment of mental responsibility must be substantial, not trivial, and this ‘substantial’ impairment is a question of degree for the jury to decide
R v Atkinson
Explanation - alcohol
The effects of alcohol do not amount to an abnormality of mental functioning.
The jury returned a verdict of murder where the D, who did suffer from mental abnormality, had consumed a quantity of alcohol before killing householder in the course of a burglary.
R v Tandy
Explanation - alcohol
Conviction for murder upheld as the D has demonstrated in her evidence that she had exercised control over her drinking.
R v Dietschmann
Explanation - alcohol
The D’s mental abnormality substantially impaired his mental responsibility despite drinking alcohol.
R v Martin
Recognized mental condition
D’s perception of danger was affected by his paranoid personality disorder
R v Seers
Recognized mental condition
D was able to argue DR due to chronic depression
R v Ahluwalia
Recognized mental condition
D was able to argue DR due to Battered Women’s Syndrome
R v Reynolds
Recognized mental condition
D was able to argue DR due to post-natal depression
R v Wood
Explanation - alcohol
D may be able to show DR from brain damage caused by alcohol. However, the alcohol consumption was voluntary, so murder was held
R v Khan
Recognized mental condition
D was able to argue DR due to schizophrenia
Diminished responsibility plan
Define - voluntary manslaughter, so it is a defence, not an offence, meaning there is no AR or MR required
- partial defence to murder, reduces a murder conviction to one of MS
Law - S52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 amends s2 of the Homicide Act 1957 and provides a 4 stage test:
1) Was the D suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning?
- state of mind so different that a ‘reasonable’ person would term it abnormal
- whether covers the ability to exercise willpower or control physical acts in accordance with rationale judgement in accordance with rationale judgment is a question for the jury
2) If so, has this arisen from an unrecognized medical condition? - R v Brennan
- Can be found in the World Health Organization’s ‘International Classification of Diseases’ - R v Martin, R v Seers, R v Ahluwalia, R v Reynolds, R v Khan
- R v Dowds - just because a mental condition is on the list, doesn’t mean its capable of being relied upon
3) If so, had it substantially impaired their ability to: understand the nature of their conduct or form rationale judgment or exercise self control (or a combination)? - R v Golds, R v Lloyd
- There must be evidence and raised by defence from the D
- The abnormality of mental functioning must’ve substantially impaired the D’s ability to: understand the nature of their conduct, form a rationale judgment, exercise self-control
4) Does it thus explain their behaviour?
- Abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for the D’s behaviour, if it was a significant contributory factor in causing the D to act as they did. It doesn’t need to be the only cause, but it must be more than a merely trivial factor
- The defence should not succeed where the D’s condition made no difference to their behaviour and they would have killed regardless of their mental condition
- Effects of alcohol don’t amount to abnormality of mental functioning. But the D may be able to show DR from brain damage caused by alcohol - R v Atkinson, R v Tandy, R v Dietschmann, R v Wood
Apply…..
Burden of proof - the D has to prove diminished responsibility on the balance of probabilities - the civil standard
Conclusion - if the D proves…, then the murder conviction will be replaced with a manslaughter conviction under diminished responsibility
