voluntary manslaughter- diminished responsibility

Question 1

define dimished responsibility- s2 of the homicide act 1957, amended by s52 of the coroners and justice act 2009

Answer 1

1. a person who kills or is party to the killing of another is not convicted of murder if D was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which
   a) arose from a recognized mental condition
   b) substantially impaired Ds ability to do or more things as mentioned in 1a)
   c) provides an explanation for D’s acts and omission in doing or being party to the killing

1A-
a) to understand the nature of D’s conduct
b) to form a rational judgement
c) to exercise self control

Question 2

1A definition

Answer 2

a) to understand the nature of D’s conduct
b) to form a rational judgement
c) to exercise self control

Question 3

medical condition

Answer 3

the defendant is suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which arose from a recognized mental condition as seen in R v Byrne

Question 4

R v Byrne (1960)

Answer 4

The appellant murdered a young girl staying in a YWCA hostel. He then mutilated her body. He did so as he was suffering from irresistible impulses which he was unable to control as he was a sexual psychopath

Held:

“abnormality of mind” was wide enough to cover the mind’s activities in all its aspects, including the ability to exercise will power to control physical acts in accordance with rational judgment. But “abnormality of mind” means a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that a reasonable man would term it abnormal. He was thus allowed the defence to reduce the murder conviction to manslaughter.

Question 5

What was the cause of this abnormal mental functioning?

Answer 5

It must arise from a recognised mental condition as diagnosed to the ICD, examples anxiety disorders, alcohol dependency and epilepsy, it was also considered that developmental immaturity should be a part of this

Question 6

Substantially impaired?

Answer 6

It must have impaired the defendants ability to:
a) to understand the nature of D’s conduct
b) to form a rational judgement
c) to exercise self control

Question 7

R v Lloyd (1967)

Answer 7

Substantial does not mean total, nor does it mean trivial and minimal, it is something in between, it is for the jury to decide if their mental responsibility is impaired and if it is substantially impaired. The judge can withdraw the fact if there is no evidence to conclude this on

Question 8

R v Golds (2016)

Answer 8

D killed his partner and admitted it, the medical evidence was that he had an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a medical condition. The only issue was whether he was in a psychotic state at the time of the killing
the SC upheld the conviction and said the judge is not ordinarily required to define the meaning of ‘substantially’, thus should only be done if the jury will not understand it.

The court directed that ‘substantially’ in the context of this defence means an impairment which was of some importance or was a serious degree of impairment, needed to be more than trivial, the reason for this is there must be an important reason to reduce murder to manslaughter

Question 9

What needs to be substantially impaired?

Answer 9

ability to understand the nature of their act, the defendant is in an automatic state, suffering from delusions, severe learning difficulties

ability to form rational judgement- paranoia, schizophrenia, battered woman syndrome

ability to exercise self control - r v byrne

Question 10

R v Dietschmann (2003)

Answer 10

The defendant was suffering from depression but was also drunk when he killed the victim, even though the abnormality was the depression, the court accepted diminished responsibility because even though he did not kill when he was sober, the depression was a substantial cause

Question 11

Burden of proof

Answer 11

the defence must prove that the defendant was suffering from diminished responsibility at the time of the offence on the balance of probabilities, expert evidence is required from at least two witnesses

Question 12

Diminished responsibility and intoxication

Answer 12

the abnormality of mental functioning needs to only be a significant contributory factor, intoxication can also be a factor
1. intoxicate at the time of killing
2. the defendant was intoxicated and had a pre existing abnormality of

Question 13

intoxication and using the defence

Answer 13

Intoxication on its own cannot be used as a defence
it is not considered to be an abnormality of the mind
it was considered in R v Dowds (2012) by the COA, who stated if parliament had intended to change the law, they would have introduced changes to the act

Question 14

Intoxication was an addiction

Answer 14

this is a recognized medical condition and can amount to an abnormality of mental functioning, this can form the basis of diminished responsibility as seen in r v woods

Question 15

intoxication and a pre existing condition case

Answer 15

R v Dietchsmann

Question 16

R v Wood (2008)

Answer 16

The appellant was an alcoholic who had been sleeping rough. He had befriended a group of alcoholics known as the breakfast club and had drunk heavily with them two days prior to the attack. After the second day of heavy drinking he was invited to spend the night at the deceased’s house. During the night he awoke to find the deceased attempting to perform oral sex on him. D repeatedly hit V with a meat cleaver killimg him. At the trial medical experts agreed that D was suffering from ADS but disagreed as to whether it affected his brain.

The judge directed the jury that if they found D suffered long term damage from alcohol abuse the defense of DR was available but if not they had to decide if drinking had been voluntary, if it was they could not use this defence

Question 17

evaluation of diminished responsibility

Answer 17

The old defense used the phrase ‘abnormality of the mind’
1a. the defendant suffered from an abnormality of the mind
this can be seen in R v Hobson
1.b the abnormality arose from a condition of arrested or retarded development; or any inherited causes; or induced by disease of injury
2. the abnormality was a substantial cause of the defendants acts of killing
not necessarily the only cause but a substantial cause
3. the abnormality substantially impaired the defendants mental responsibility for their acts