Voluntary Manslaughter Diminished Responsibility Flashcards
where was this defense established?
Homicide Act 1957, amended by s.52 of the Coroners Justice Act 2009
what is diminished responsibilty
suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which;
- arose from a recognized medical condition
- substantially impaired D’s ability to do one or more of the following:
- understand nature of the conduct
- form a rational judgment
- exercise self-control
- provides explanation for D’s conduct
abnormality of mental functioning?
R v Byrne - a ‘state of mind so different from that of the ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal’
cause of the abnormality of functioning?
must arise from a ‘recognised medical condition’
covers both psychological and physical conditions
must be medical evidence to prove this.
substantially impaired?
the abnormality of mental functioning must substantially impair D’s mental responsibility for his acts/omissions
R v Lloyds and substantial impairment?
held that ‘substantial does not mean total, nor trivial or minimal , it is something in between, for jury to decide.
R v Golds and substantial impairment?
while impairment must be more than trivial,
it is not the case that any impairment that is more than trivial will suffice.
what must be substantially impaired?
the D’s ability to
- understand the nature of his conduct
- to form a rational judgement
- to exercise self-control
1) ability to understand the nature of his conduct?
e.g. where D is in an automatic state, does not know what he’s doing. D suffering delusions, where they don’t know the nature of their act.
2) ability to form a rational judgement
e.g. conditions like paranoia or battered women syndrome where they can’t form judgement.
3) ability to exercise self control
situation in R v Byrne- a sexual psychopath, unable to control perverted desires
provides an explanation for D’s conduct
diminished responsibility must be a significant factor that caused D to be involved in the killing.
diminished responsibility and intoxication
there are 3 factors to consider
1st factor of intoxication; D was intoxicated at the time of the killing and tries to use diminished responsibility?
intoxication alone cannot be used for defence,
defence requires abnormality of mental functioning due to recognised medical condition which is not present in intoxication, R v Dowds
2nd factor of intoxication; D intoxicated and has a pre-existing abnormality of mental functioning?
R v Dietschmann, jury must decide if D would have killed without intoxication to see if abnormality alone would be sufficient to impair responsibility.
