diminished responsibility

• R v Lloyd (1967) - individual substantially impaired mentally
• Diminished responsibility in law:

  • Defined as an abnormality of mental functioning
  • Legal cases supporting this concept:
  • Bryne (1960): abnormality of mental functioning
  • Ahluwation (1992): recognised medical condition battered spouse syndrome
  • R v Martin (2000): recognised medical condition paranoid personality disorder
  • R v Lloyd (1967): substantially impaired mentally
  • R v Kay (2017): medical condition + voluntary intoxication
• The abnormality of mind can be temporary or permanent but it must exist at the relevant time.
• The burden of proving the defense is on the defendant, who must prove it on the balance of probabilities
• There is a four-stage test for self-control:

  1. Whether the defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning

  2. If so, whether it had arisen from a recognized medical condition
• There is no requirement that the abnormality of mind causes the defendant to act with reduced culpability.
• The defendant's actions are not excused if they were caused by voluntary intoxication (unless there is evidence that the defendant did not know the nature or effect of the substance).
• The defendant must have been suffering from an abnormality of mind at the time of committing the act, which substantially impaired his ability to understand what he was doing or to control himself.
• If the defendant has been convicted of murder, they will receive life imprisonment unless there are exceptional circumstances which justify a lesser sentence.
• In R v Byrne (1960), Lord Parker stated that "the defence of diminished responsibility does not apply where the accused's conduct falls below the standard expected of an ordinary person."
• If the defendant has been convicted of murder, the jury will consider if there are any grounds for reducing the verdict to manslaughter due to diminished responsibility.
• In R v Smith (1959), the court held that the defence could apply even when the defendant acted under duress.
• The defence does not apply if the defendant has been convicted of murder on another occasion.
• If the defendant has been convicted of murder, the jury will consider whether the defendant killed another person while suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which substantially impaired his ability to understand the nature and wrongfulness of his conduct.
• If the defendant has committed murder, the jury will be asked to consider whether they believe that the defendant killed the victim due to an abnormality of mind as described above.
• In cases where the defendant has committed murder but can rely on diminished responsibility, the judge will direct the jury to find him guilty of manslaughter instead.
• Diminished responsibility can be used as a partial defence against charges of murder but cannot be used as a complete defence.
• To use diminished responsibility as a defence, the defendant must prove that they had an abnormality of mental functioning at the relevant time.
• An abnormality of mental functioning means that the defendant suffered from an illness or condition that affected their mental state at the time of the crime.
• The defence is available only if the defendant had an abnormality of mental functioning at the relevant time.
• The defence applies regardless of whether the defendant knew about their condition.
• Diminished responsibility can only be used as a partial defence against murder charges.
• To succeed in this defence, the defendant must prove that he was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning at the time of the killing.
• The abnormality of mental functioning must have substantially impaired the defendant's ability to understand the nature and wrongfulness of their actions.
• The defendant does not need to show that they were insane at the time of the crime; it is enough if they were suffering from some kind of mental disorder.
• The defendant must also prove that this abnormality was present when they carried out the actus reus of the crime.
• The defendant's ability to form a rational judgment was impaired by reason of an abnormality of mental functioning.
• The defendant did not have a normal awareness of what he/she was doing when committing the act charged.
• The defendant could not reasonably be expected to have been aware of the nature and wrongfulness of his actions.
• If the defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning at the time of the killing, it may have reduced his ability to control himself.