dimished responsibilty

• • Partial defence for murder 
  • Set out in S2 of the homicide act 1957 and later amended in S52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 

  four stage test:
• four stage test

  1) D suffers from an abnormality of mental functioning

  2.Abnormality has arisen from a recognised mental condition

  3.Substantially impaired D

  4.Abnormality of metal functioning is the explanation for D’s act or omission
• 1. D suffers from an abnormality of mental functioning:  

  • a state of mind that is so different from an ordinary human being and a reasonable man would see it as ‘abnormal’ - R v Byrne (d was a sexual psychopath = unable to control his perverted desires
• • 2. Abnormality has arose from a recognized mental condition under the 2009 act eg  
  • ⁃ Rv Gittens (depression)
  •   ⁃ R v Byrne (sexual psychopath = unable to control his perverted desires) 
  • ⁃ R v Ahluwaila (Battered spouse syndrome)
  • ⁃ R v Campbell (Epilepsy)  
  • ⁃ Enough to cover psychological and physical conditions   
  • There must be medical evidence to show abnormality of mental functioning has arisen from a recognised mental condition  
• 3. The abnormality Substantially impaired D’s ability to do at least one of these three: 

  ⁃ Understand the nature of their conduct

    ⁃ Form a rational judgment  

  ⁃ Exercise self control 

  R v Llyod: ‘substantial’ - means more than trivial or minimal  (not total )-> plays a significant role in affecting their actions and decision-makings,  judgment is noticeably affected by their mental state, (jury to decide) R v Golds: issue was if d was in a psychotic state at the time of the killing and was ‘substantial’ (if the defendant's psychotic state was significant enough to impact their actions) 
• 4. Abnormality of metal functioning explains D’s act or omission: 

  • there must be causal link between D’s abnormality and the killing.  
  • S1 (b) states: ‘provides explanation if it causes a significant contributory factor in causing d to do that offence’   

   
•  Extra* rule on intoxication: If D was also intoxicated at the time of the killing, it will be ignored as in Dietschmann – d killed V because he had insulted D's deceased aunt, with whom he'd had a close emotional and physical relationship).