Diminished responsibility

• Here, the partial defence to murder of diminished responsibility may apply, set out in S.2 of the Homicide Act 1957 as amended by Section 52 of the Coroners and Justices Act 2009. The standard of Proof is on the balance of probabilities, established in WILCOCKS.
• Four tests must be satisfied:

  Firstly, under S.2(1), the defendant must have been suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning. This means a state of mind that the reasonable person would consider abnormal, (BYRNE)
• • Here, e.g...
• Abnormality of mental functioning


  Must arise from a recognised medical condition
• Medical evidence will be needed
• If two medical professionals agree that there is a recognised medical condition, then D MUST NOT be charged with murder (BRENNAN)
• Recognised medical conditions


  • Depression (SEERS)
  • Asperger's syndrome (JAMA)
  • Adjustment disorder (DIETSCHMANN)
  • Battered Women's Syndrome (AHLUWALIA)
  • Schizophrenia (KHAN)
  • Alcohol dependency Syndrome (STEWART)
  • Alcoholism (WOOD)
  • Personality disorder (MARTIN)
  • Postnatal depression (REYNOLDS)
  • Pre-menstrual tension (SMITH)
  • PTSD
  • Diabetes
  • Epilepsy (CAMPBELL)
  • Sleep disorder
• (CHOOSE THE ONE WHICH IS PRESENT IN THE SCENARIO, THEN TWO OTHERS)

  • Here, e.g....
• Thirdly, the abnormality of mental functioning must substantially impair the defendant's ability to do one of three things: Understand the nature of his conduct, or form a rational judgement or exercise self-control
• This test amended Section 2(1A) of the Homicide Act 1957, and reflected the decision in BYRNE. In the 2016 case of Golds, confirming LLoyd, it was confirmed that "substantial impairment" means more than trivial, but does not need to be total and is a matter for the jury to decide.

  • Here, e.g......
• Fourthly, the abnormality of mental functioning must provide an explanation for the killing. It need not be the only contributory factor, but it must be a significant factor.
• Intoxication on its own cannot be an explanation for the killing, (DOWDS). However, being intoxicated does not prevent an abnormality of mental functioning from providing an explanation for the killing, (DIETSCHMANN). Intoxication due to Alcohol Dependency Syndrome or alcoholism, which renders the defendant unable to control his drinking, or he has drunk so much that his brain has been damaged, can provide an explanation for the killing (STEWART/WOOD)
• • Here, e.g.....
• NOTE: Intoxication may be relevant here also-depression can still provide the explanation for the killing even if D was intoxicated.
• TO CONCLUDE, D will still be liable for voluntary manslaughter not murder as all the tests for diminished responsibility are satisfied