Diminished Responsibility
- Created by: Hayley Petts
- Created on: 06-06-14 11:22
View mindmap
- Diminished Responsibility
- definition
- s.2(1) Homicide Act 1957 as ammended by Coroners and Justice Act 2009
- a person is not be convicted of murder if they suffer from an abnormality of mental functioning
- arose from a recognised medical condition
- substantially impair D's ability to
- understand the nature of his conduct
- form a rational judgement
- exercise self control
- must provide an explanation for D's acts or omissions for doing or being a third party to the killing
- bought in by Coroners and Justice Act 2009
- a person is not be convicted of murder if they suffer from an abnormality of mental functioning
- burden of proof on D but only to the standard of a balance of probability
- s.2(1) Homicide Act 1957 as ammended by Coroners and Justice Act 2009
- Abnormality of mental functioning
- under the old law defined as
- a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal
- Byrne (1960) - sexual psychopath who strangled and mutilated young woman
- medical evidence suggested that D could not control perverted desires
- under the old law defined as
- Cause of abnormality of mental functioning
- s.2 (1) Homicide Act 1957 must arise from recognised medical condition
- wide enough to cover both psychological and physical conditions
- paranoia
- battered women syndrome
- epilepsy
- wide enough to cover both psychological and physical conditions
- medical evidence must be given at trial
- s.2 (1) Homicide Act 1957 must arise from recognised medical condition
- substantially impaired
- the D ability to do one of 3 things set out in s.2 (1A)
- under nature of conduct
- form rational judgement
- exercise self control
- Byrne (1960) - CA said that the question of whether the impairment was substantial was one of degree and for jury to decide
- Lloyd (1967) - held that substantial does not mean total nor does it mean trivial or minimal
- something in between for jury to decide if D's mental responsibility is impaired
- the D ability to do one of 3 things set out in s.2 (1A)
- provide an explanation for the killing
- must now be a causal link between abnormality of mental functioning and the killing
- abnormality must be a significant factor
- abnormality need not be the only factor
- Overlap with intoxication
- simply being intoxicated will not give rise to defence
- must be an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition
- Di Duca (1959) - CA held that a 'transient' state of intoxication is not an abnormality of mental functioning
- Dietschmann (2003) - D killed man who was disrespectful to memory of his aunt who recently died
- D suffered from grief-induced adjustment disorder but also drunk
- HL: if you take away the current alcohol would the accused have an abnormality that caused conduct and resulting death?
- Hendy (2006) - intoxicated but there was evidence of underlying brain damage and psychopathic disorder
- Robson (2006) - intoxicated but suffered from an acute stress disorder when killed V
- Tandy (1989) - alcoholic drunk most of a bottle of vodka and killed daughter who said she had been abused by T's husband
- CA held that alcohol was an external cause and T had not been injured or drinking it involuntary
- Wood (2008) - went to flat after heavily drinking and fell asleep. woke to find man trying to perform oral sex on him so killed him with meat cleaver.
- D suffering from ADS
- CA quashed conviction as judge was wrong to direct jury that all of D's drinking had to be involuntary
- definition
Comments
No comments have yet been made