Diminished responsibility

• This is a partial defence - meaning?

  It reduces the sentence for murder (because of diminished responsibility or loss of control)
• Which Act and sections detail this defence?


  Originally outlined in The Homicide Act 1957 but is now in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 s52, s54, s55
• What key things were in the outlined in the old defence of diminished responsibility?

  • 'abnormality of mind'
  • 'retarded development induced by disease or injury' (low intelligence) (brain injury)
• How is diminished responsibility defined now?

  Suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which arose from a recognised health condition which substantially impaired D's ability:

  • to understand the nature of their conduct...
  • to form a rational judgement or...
  • to exercise self control
• Who does the burden of proof lie with if attempting to use this defence? What's the standard?

  It's on the prosecution to prove you did the act however the defence must prove you had diminished responsibility (on a balance of probabilities)
• 'Abnormality of mental functioning' 


  Means a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable person would term it abnormal eg R v Byrne 1960 where the ability to exercise willpower or control physical acts was covered in accordance with rational judgement. It doesn't have to be the only cause or even the most important factor in causing the behaviour. But it must be 'more than a merely trivial' factor. It is a question for the jury.
• 'Recognised medical condition'

  The World Health Organisation has a list of classified diseases which would be classed as leading to diminished responsibility eg Paranoia, DID, associative disorders, OCD, severe autism, personality disorders, pyromania, depersonalisation, post partum depression, drug dependence, PTSD, stress disorders, schizophrenia and insomnia disorder. There's also scope for a condition not included in the list for purposes of this test. The defence could call an acknowledged specialist who's had their work validated to five evidence
• 'Substantially impaired' - How substantially?

  In Lloyd 1967 it was held substantial doesn't mean total nor does it mean trivial or minimal. It is something in between and it is for the jury to decide. Or as section (1b) of the CJA 2009 adds - a significant contributory factor.
• 'Understand the nature of his conduct'


  He may not be able to understand due to extreme autism, depersonalisation or even sleep walking
• 'Or form a rational judgement'


  D might not be able to form a rational judgement with conditions like post partum depression, drug dependence, schizophrenia, dementia or OCD
• 'Exercise self control' BECAUSE OF an abnormality of mental functioning, cannot be just simply losing control


  D might have paranoia, intermittent explosive disorder (uncontrolled anger) or pyromania which stops self control
• 'Provides an explanation of D's conduct'


  Must be some casual connection between D's abnormality and the killing
• What if D is intoxicated?

  Alcohol and drugs can be a defence to certain crimes but the law becomes quite complicated when intoxication is used as a condition leading to diminished responsibility. There's a clear rule that intoxication alone cannot support a defence of diminished responsibility but you can get the defence if you can prove D has alcohol dependency syndrome. In Dowds 2012 it was established that voluntary acute intoxication cannot be grounds for a defence of DR.
• What if D has an abnormality of mental functioning and then becomes intoxicated?

  The rule's different if D had some pre-existing abnormality of mental functioning, then becomes intoxicated. In Dietschmann it was questioned if D killed V as a result of his intoxication or because of his abnormality of mental functioning. Held intoxication cannot afford a defence but his abnormality of mental functioning could. Drink can only amount to DR if it either causes damage to the brain or produces an irresistible craving so that consumption is involuntary (alcohol dependency syndrome)
• Which of the 2 factors must be applied for a DR defence to be successful if D is intoxicated?

  • They have an abnormality of mental functioning but drink, it's still proven this led to the death
  • Or they have brain damage / an irresistible craving so consumption is involuntary
• What happens if D has alcohol dependency syndrome?


  In Tandy 1989 it was established for drink to produce an 'abnormality of mental functioning' by alcohol, there had to be grossly impaired judgement and emotional responses or the craving had to be such as to render the first drink of the day involuntary. If D simply hadn't resisted an urge, DR wouldn't be available to her. If D took the first drink of the day voluntarily then the whole drinking of the day was voluntary and DR wouldn't be available.
• What happened in Wood 2008?

  It was suggested that involuntary drinking was physically impossible by the trial judge, which was a wrong direction.
• Problems with DR?

  • unrecognised medical conditions?
  • the contradictory law on intoxication
• Recognised medical conditions

  • Bryne - sexual psychopathy
  • Gittens - severe depression
  • Wood - alcohol dependency syndrome
  • Aluwhalia - Battered Spouse Syndrome
  • Simcox - paranoid personality
  • Martin - paranoid personality
  • Dietshmann - depressed grief reaction
  • Campbell - frontal lobe damage and epilepsy
  • Smith - serious clinical depression
  • Reynolds - aspergers
  • Golds - Emotionall unstable personality disorder
  • Erskine - chronic schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder