DR

• D may be able to plead the special defence of DR under s52 of Coroners and Justice Act 2009
• s52(1) = D must suffer from the abnormality of mental functioning - it is a condition that is a state of mind that is so different from that of an ordinary man that the reasonable man would regard it abnormal - Byrne
• s52(1)(a) = the abnormality of mental functioning must have arose from a recognised medical condition - this covers both psychological and physical conditions

  however, it is for the jury to be satisfied that D's abnormality arose from a recognised medical condition

  battered woman syndrome - Ahluwalia

  depression - Seers

  sexual psychopath - Byrne
• s52(1)(b) = the abnormality of mental functioning must have substantially impaired D's ability to do one or more of the 3 things listed in s52(A):

  (a) - understand the nature of his conduct

  (b) - form a rational judgement

  (c) - exercise self-control

  R v Golds = Elias Li's judgement interpreted the term substantial to mean something which is more than merely trivial or minimal owing to the fact that it has a substance or something that is big or large
• s52(1)(c) = the abnormality of mental functioning must provide an explanation for D's acts or omissions - this is a question of causation

  the abnormality doesn't need to be the only factor, but it must be the significant factor - Cheshire (s52(1)(B))
• here D is suffering simultaneously from an abnormality of mental functioning and intoxication. the jury should disregard the effect of intoxication and merely consider whether that abnormality of mind was such that it amounted to DR - Egan

  D must satisfy that , despite the drink, his mental abnormality substantially impaired his mental responsibility - Dietschmann
• in Wood = court stated that ADS could be considered as a possible source of the abnormality of mental functioning - this was for the jury to decide. if jury found that it was an abnormality of mind, then they have to consider any effect of any alcohol consumed by the D because of his dependency. this involved questions as to whether the Ds craving was or was not irresistible and whether his consumption was voluntary. this issue was again considered in R v Stewart, the CoA set out a 3-stage test for juries to follow
• the 3-stage test is:

  1-was D suffering from an AOM, they pointed out the mere fact that this doesn't mean D's ADS automatically counts as an abnormality. the nature and extent has to be considered

  2-was D's abnormality caused by the ADS

  3-was D's mental responsibility impaired