Diminished Responsibility

Diminished Responsibility Homicide Act 1957 now amended by the Coroners & Jusitce Act 2009

Key points • Can only be raised as a defence to murder • Is only a partial defence to murder • Success means a reduced verdict of Manslaughter - more flexible sentencing • The D must raise and prove the defence • The standard of proof is lower - on balance of probabilities • It is based on having a medical condition that is a factor in causing D to kill. • Most D’s successful without having a trial

Put a tick next to the medical conditions that are allowed • Pre menstrual tension • Depression • Battered Wives syndrome • Severe jealousy • Alcoholism • Paranoia

D must prove on balance 4 things: • Has a recognised medical condition • Which causes an abnormality of mental functioning • Which substantially impairs the D from forming a rational judgement, understanding his conduct or exercising self control • And the jury believe this provides an explanation for the killing

Has a recognised medical condition • Based on established medical knowledge • Most available in medical lists in which case it is upto the judge to accept • Example American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders • If it is a new condition the judge must allow the jury to decide from medical evidence at the trial

Which causes Abnormality of mental functioning • Not defined in the Act • Jury have to decide from evidence if the D’s behaviour was so different from the reasonable man’s behaviour that they consider it unusual (R v Byrne) • The abnormality does not have to permanent • Nor does it have to have existed since birth (R v Gomez) • Clearly it has to affect the D’s mental capacity • It only has to exist at the time of the killing

The medical condition substantially impairs the D mental functioning • Substantial doesn't mean the medical condition has to have a large effect on the D’s ability to make decisions • The condition must affect the D’s mental condition to more than a trivial extent (R v Lloyd) • There can also be other reasons that the D kills as long the medical condition is more than a trivial part of why. • Substantial does not have to mean total - its common sense

Medical condition substantially impairs D’s ability to do specific things • The act is very specific as to what the medical condition has to affect in the D - there are 3 things. • Understand his conduct and kill • Form a rational judgment and kill • Exercise self control and kill • You are looking for evidence in scenarios • It will be very clear if you know the case facts

Guess which one of the three things • Byrne knew he was killing but his condition meant he couldn’t resist the impulse to do this. • Stewart - Alcohol Dependency Syndrome and alcohol made D delusional • Simcox - paranoia meant he perceived threats that weren’t really there

Jury on balance believe this explains the reason for killing • Jury decide whether or not they believe the medical condition explains the killing • D has to prove this on balance of probabilities • This will be your concluding statement in problem solving • Remember - D not free but now convicted of Manslaughter

Diminished Responsibility