Should DR be a defence to murder?
Does it increase the safety of the public?
Should defendants with an abnormailty of mental function have to claim insanity?
Should the defence be open to all crimes? Should it only be a partial defence?
Should the medical condition be recognised?
Only conditions recognised by the World Health Organization count. Is this the right way to deal with defendants?
Should it be medical conditions or mental conditions?
Abnormality of mental functioning
Was there a need to move from abnormaility of the mind to abnormaility of mental functioning?
Does abnormaility of mental functioning actually add anything to the defence?
Why substantial not total or partial?
Why only one of the three criteria? Are these the right criteria to determine abnormaility of mental functioing?
Does abnormality add anything?
Does this add anything to the defence?
Are juries the right people to determine this?
Should loss of control be a defence?
Should we insist that people maintain control?
Should this be a defence to all crimes?
Should it only be a partial defence to murder?
What is a loss of control?
Can juries distinguish a loss of control from a loss of temper or loss of restraint?
Should revenge killing be a defence?
Do people have been abused deserve a specific partial defence of revenge killing?
Was the law right to remove 'sudden & temporary'?
Will this help defendants claiming on the basis of cumulative provocation which has caused their loss ie provocation over a substantial period of time?
Do we have the right triggers?
Should we able to claim for anger?
Have we got the criteria for the 2 triggers correct?
Are we right to remove sexual infidelity?
Should it matter why a defendant suffered anger?
Is it logical not to be able to claim solely on the basis of this but can claim if it is one of a number of factors?
Is the normal person rule helpful?
What is a normal person?
Could a normal person ever kill?
Should we base the defence on the defendant rather than comparing their actions to a fictional person?
Should we distinguish control & response?
Will juries understand this?
Should we take into account mental health issues?
Is it illogical if a mental health issue could be either a control or response characteritic?
Should the defendant be able to rely on a mistake?
Should honest and genuine mistakes count?
Should this be changed to reasonable mistakes or mistakes a normal peron would make?
Should a D be able to rely on a self-induced event
Should defendants be barred from the defence if they started the incident?
Should we diferentiate situations in which the defendant started? Is the incitement of violence rule a good one?
A trigger aimed at another should count?
Should it be limited to the defendant?
Are we right to differentiate others?
Should judges have the right to remove the defence
In Clinton this was a misdirection, will this create more miscarriages?
Should the jury be the sole arbiter?