VM: Diminished Responsibility

• Homicide Act 1957,s.2 as amended by Coroners & Justice Act 2009, s.52:

  • "(1) A person... is not to be convicted of murder if D was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which -
  • (a) arose from a recognised medical condition,
  • (b) substantially impaired D's ability to:
  • to understand the nature of D's conduct;
  • to form a rational judgement;
  • to exercise self-control
  • (c) provides an explanation for D's acts and omissions."
• Requirements for Using the Defence:

  1. An Abnormality of Mental Functioning
  2. Caused by Recognised Medical Condition
  3. Substantially Impairs D's ability
  4. And Provides and Explanation for D's actions.
• R v Wilcocks 2016:

  • The burden of proof is on the defendant.
  • However this is only on the balance of probabilities.

  R v Golds 2016:

  • The defence requires medical evidence in order to succeed.

  R v Brennan 2014:

  • Where medical evidence is uncontested and shows a clear abnormality, the murder charge should be withdrawn from the jury.
• Abnormality of Mental Functioning (AOMF):

  • Means the defendant's mind is not working in the same way as a "normal" persons.
  • R v Byrne 1960:
  • Is "a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal"
  • D was sexual psychopath who strangled young woman and mutilated her body. The medical evidence was that, because of a condition e experienced 'irresistible impulses' and he was unable to control his perverted desires.
  • On appeal, his conviction was reduced to manslaughter on basis of diminished responsibility.
• Recognised Medical Condition:

  • This can be physical or psychological condition, as long as it is recognised by the World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases (ICD)
  • R v Dowds 2012:
  • The medical evidence must show that the condition caused the abnormality of mental functioning. This does not include voluntary intoxication.
• Recognised Medical Condition: (condition)

  • R v Byrne 1960 - Perverted sexual desires (Irresistible Impulses (Psychopathic)
  • R v Alhuwalia 1993 - Killed abusive husband (Battered Wives Syndrome)
  • R v Wood 2008 - Unwanted sexual advance (Alcoholism)
  • R v Stewart 2009 - Homeless man killed (Alcohol Dependency Syndrome)
• Recognised Medical Condition: (condition)

  • R v Simcox 1964 - D killed wives (Paranoia)
  • R v Dietschmann 2003 - Broke aunt's watch (Adjustment Disorder)
  • R v Campbell 1987 - Killed hitch-hiker (Epilepsy and Frontal Lobe Damage)
  • R v Smith 1982 - Killed barmaid (Pre-Menstrual Tension)
• Recognised Medical Condition: (condition)

  • R v Reynolds 1988 - Killed mother (Post-Natal Depression)
  • R v Moyle 2008 - Killed man at pub (Paranoid Schizophrenia)
  • R v Gittens 1984 - Killed wife/daughter (Depression & Alcoholism)
  • R v Martin 2001 - Killed a burglar (Paranoid Personality Disorder)
• Substantially Impairs:

  • The medical condition must cause the Abnormality of Mental Functioning and this stops the Defendant being able to do one of three things.
  • R v Golds 2016:
  • The jury can decide if the impairment was 'substantial' enough to lead D to kill.
  • It does not have to be total impairment, but it should be more than minimal and the judge can advise the jury that this needs to be 'large'.
• Substantially Impairs:

  • The Defendant's ability to do one of three things must be impaired:

  1. To understand the nature of his conduct - e.g. D is in an automatic state, or delusional, or has severe learning difficulties.
  2. To form a rational judgement - e.g. D has paranoia, schizophrenia or BWS so cannot make common sense decisions.
  3. To exercise self-control - e.g. D is unable to control their impulses (as in Byrne)
• Provides an explanation:

  • The Abnormality of Mental Functioning must explain why the D killed.
  • There must be a causal link between D's abnormality of mental functioning and killing.
  • It does not need to be the sole cause or even the most important cause, but it must be more than a trivial factor.
  • The defence should not succeed where the medical condition made no difference to their behaviour (e.g. they would have killed anyway).
• Diminished Responsibility and Intoxication:

  • Intoxication alone cannot be enough for Diminished Responsibility. However, courts will allow D's intoxication (drink/drugs) to be taken into account for Diminished Responsibility if:
  • D has brain damage as result of alcohol misuse - R v Wood 2008
  • D is intoxicated involuntarily - either through being spiked or through alcohol dependency - R v Wood 2008, R v Stewart 2009
  • D was intoxicated but has recognised medical condition which remained the cause of killing despite intoxication - R v Dietschmann 2003