diminished responsibility

• Diminished Responsibility was originally introduced by the Homicide Act 1957.
• defence of diminished responsibility is amended by s52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
• s52 says:

  1. a person who kills or is a party to the killing of another isnt convicted of murder if D was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which
  2. arose from a recognised medical condition
  3. substantially impaired D's ability to understand the nature of D's conduct, form a rational judgement or exercise self control.
  4. provides an explanation for Ds acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.
• burden of proof for diminished responsibility is on the defendant to prove on the balance of probabilities.
• abnormality of mental functioning- R V Byrne

  a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that a reasonable person would term it abnormal.
• the abnormality of mental functioning must arise from a recognised medical condition. medical evidence will be presented at the trial and the jury will decide if it is sufficient.
• the abnormality must have substantially impaired D's ability to;

  a)understand nature of his conduct

  b)form a rational judgement

  c)exercise self control
• R V Golds said that substantially means an impairment which was of some seriousness and needed to be more than trivial.
• provides an explanation for D' conduct;

  must be a casual connection between the defendants abnormality of mental functioning and the killing.

  the abnormality doesn't need to be the only factor which caused D to do the killing but it must be a significant factor.
• diminished responsibility and intoxication:

  abnormality need not be the main factor but must be significant meaning this is important when D is intoxicated.

  3 possibilities to consider;

  • D was intoxicated and tries to use this defence
  • D was intoxicated and has a pre existing abnormality
  • the intoxication is due to an addiction.
• d was intoxicated at the time of the killing - R V Dowds

  intoxication lone isnt sufficient for diminished responsibility.
• d was intoxicated and had a pre existing abnormality - R V Dietschmann

  despite the drink, the abnormality substantially impaired his mental reasoning? (lord hutton)
• intoxication is due to addiction - R V Wood

  jury has to consider the effect of the alcohol consumed because this is classed as involuntary intoxication.
• s55 sets out the qualifying triggers:

  • s55(3) defendants fear of serious violence
  • s55(4) things said or done which

  1. constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and
  2. caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being wronged.
• s55(5) says that the qualifying triggers can be a combination of these 2 matters.
• Fear of serious violence: s55(3)

  • must fear violence from the victim, a subjective test and D must show they lost self control
  • needs to be against the defendant or another identified person
• s55(6)(a)- where defendant has incited the violence in order to have an excuse to use force, he cannot rely on the qualifying trigger.

  • R V Dawes
• s55(4)- Things done or said

  • must be of 'extremely grave character' and
  • caused D to have a justifiable sense of being wronged
• R V Doughty- crying baby was allowed under provocation.
• R V Zebedee- loss of control was not allowed due to father's incontinence
• s55(6)(c)- a thing said or done amounted to sexual infidelity is to be disregarded.
• s54(4) defence is not allowed if the defendant acted in a considered desire for revenge.

  • R V Baillie