diminished responsibility

• where is diminished responsibility contained?

  s2(1) homicide act 1957
• which act updated and amended diminished responsibility?

  the coroners and justice act 2009
• diminished responsibility is a special defence, what does this mean?

  it is only applicable to murder
• diminished responsibility is a partial defence, what does this mean?

  it reduces the conviction rather than a complete acquittal
• what is the first element?

  an abnormality of mental functioning
• what was confirmed in r v byrne about element 1?


  ’a state of mind so different from that of an ordinary person that the reasonable man would term it abnormal’
• what is the second element?

  the abnormality of mental functioning must be caused by a recognised medical condition (either psychiatric, psychological or physical illness) which is given on the w.h.o. classification of diseases
• what is the third element?

  the recognised medical condition must cause a substantial impairment
• what three types of impairment will satisfy the defence?

  an impairment of: understanding the nature of conduct; forming a rational judgement’ exercising self-control
• what did r v golds confirm?

  even a modest impairment could not be recognised as substantial
• what is element 4?

  the abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for the conduct
• what act was element 4 introduced in?

  the coroners and justice act 2009
• where was element 4 defined?

  s1b homicide act 1957
• what is the definition of element 4?

  ‘an abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for defendant’s conduct if it causes or is a significant contributory factor in causing the defendant to carry out that conduct’
• what did r v dowds confirm?

  voluntary acute intoxication is not alone capable of founding diminished responsibility
• what did r v dietschmann confirm?

  the jury must consider ‘did, despite the drink, the mental abnormality substantially impair his mental responsibility for his acts in doing the killing?’
• what did r v wood confirm?

  alcohol dependency syndrome may be recognised as a medical condition