Thirdly, under S. 52(1)(b), the abnormality of mental functioning must substantially impair the D's ability to do one or more of the things mentioned under subsection1A.
the things mentioned are:
understand the nature of his conduct (they don't understand what they are doing)
form a rational judgement (lack of thinking)
exercise self-control (they lack control)
in the recent case of Golds, the court said in order for it to be substantial, it must be something that made a great difference.
Finally, under S. 52(1)(c), the abnormality of mental functioning must provide an explanation for the killing
S. 52(1b) provide that the abnormality of mental functioning can be a significant contributory factor and so there can be other factors too. This is illustrated in cases like Deitschmann