Diminished Responsibility (DR)

The defence of DR is defined by s2 of the Homicide Act 1957 as amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. It is available as a defence for murder and if pleaded successfully it will reduce the accused's liability to voluntary manslaughter

Main Features of DR:

Where D kills he is not to be convicted of murder if he was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which:

a) Arose from a recognised mental condition,

b) Which substantially impaired D's ability to:

• Understand the nature of his conduct OR
• Form a rational judgement OR
• Exercise self-control

c) The abnormality provides an explanation for D's conduct 

This must be a state of mind which was so unusual that the reasonable person would describe it as abnormal as in BYRNE

Depressive illness- SEERS

Schizophrenia- SIMCOX

Shock, Epilepsy, Pre-menstrual Tension- ENGLISH

Aspergers Syndrome- JAMA

Battered Wives Syndrome- AHLUWALIA 

The abnormality needs to be "more than minimal" and need not be total as in LLOYD

D's ability to do one of the 3 things must be substantially impaired:

1) Understand nature of his conduct- Automatic state, delusions, mentally retarded

2) Form a rational judgement- Schizophrenia SIMCOX

3) Exercise self-control BYRNE

The last bit to prove DR is:

The abnormality provides an explanation for D's conduct. There has to be a causal link between D's abnormality and the killing. The abnormality need not be the only factor but it has to have been the significant factor as in DIETSCHMANN

D was drunk and killed someone= Murder

D was drunk and killed someone but had a mental abnormality already= Manslaughter

D had an abnormality of the mind caused by drink= Manslaughter if brain injury occurred as a direct result of alcoholism 

The general rule is that intoxication is not an abnormality of mental functioning as it is a voluntary and temporary state and not a medical condition as in DI DUCA

More recently...

HENDY- D was intoxicated but there was evidence of underlying brain damage and a psychopathic disorder

ROBSON- Where D was heavily intoxicated, but also suffering from an acute stress disorder when he killed V

COA quashed= Manslaughter

R V TANDY- D drunk a bottle of vodka, strangled her daughter, pleaded DR, no disease. D failed to exercise control and was NOT suffering from an abnormality of the mind= Murder!

R v Wood- D drank heavily and went to V's flat. D claimed he had fallen asleep and been woken up by being sexually assaulted. D hit V with a meat cleaver killing him. D was an alcoholic but disagreed with brain damage

D convicted- COA quashed. Judge was wrong to direct the jury that drinking had to be involuntary.