Diminished Responsibility Essay Model Answer

• It might be possible for the d (state name) to raise the partial defence of diminished responsibility contained in s.2 of the Homicide Act 1957 as amended by s52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. This means if the d is successful their charge of murder will be reduced to voluntary manslaughter by diminished responsibility.
• Diminished responsibility can only be used if the d did not have the required mens rea for murder because they were suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning (AMF) caused by a recognised medical condition (RMC) that substantially impaired her ability to either; understand the nature of her conduct, form a rational judgement or exercise self-control and it was the explanation for it.
• To be successful in raising diminished responsibility, under s.52(1), the defendant must suffer from an abnormality of mental functioning. There is no legal definition, but currently the definition by Lord Parker from R v Byrne is used and states that an AMF is 'a state of mind so different from that of the ordinary human being that the reasonable man would term it abnormal'.
• The AMF must be caused by a recognised medical condition (RMC) under s.52(1)(a). It must be recognised by the medical profession and medical evidence must be submitted. Although there is no definitive list of RMCs, the World Health Organisation's International classification of diseases ICD-11 is often used as a source, depression as illustrated in R v Seers and Battered Spouse syndrome from R v Hobson are examples.
• The next element that must be considered is whether the d's RMC causes a substantial impairment in their mental responsibility (s.52(1)(b)). The statute states a defendant must not be able to understand the nature of their conduct (s.52(1A)(a)), form a rational judgement (s.52(1A)(b)) or exercise self-control (s.52(1A)(c)). The case of Lloyd previously established that substantial impairment doesn't mean total but means more than trivial and the Supreme Court in R v Golds decided 'substantially' should be given it's ordinary meaning by the Jury.
• The d must show that they did not have the:

  The ability to understand the nature of their conduct under s.52(1A)(a): this covers situations where the Defendant doesn't know what they are doung or are delusional, as in Dietschmann (2003).

  Or the ability to form rational judgement under s.52(1A)(b): this is where the defendant cannot make sensible choices, or do the right thing, as in Ahulwalia (1997).

  Or the ability to exercise self-control under s.52(1A)(c): this is where the defendant cannot control their urges/actions, as in Byrne (1960).
• The final part of the test that Helen would have to satisfy is whether there is a link between her AMF and her killing so whether it provides an explanation for her acts (s.52(1)(c)). S.52(1B) states that an 'abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for Ds conduct if it causes, or is a significant factor in causing D to carry out that conduct.'
• *Check if there is any mention of intoxication in the scenario*
• If the defendant is intoxicated by alcohol or drugs or any other noxious substance then this is not an abnormality of mental functioning as illustrated in R v Dowds. Simply taking drink or drugs will not be enough for diminished responsibility.
• There may be scenarios in which a defendant has an AMF but is also intoxicated. The Court must decide if they can still use the defence of diminished responsibility. The rule on this issue comes from R v Dietschmann where Lord Hutton stated that the Court must ignore the impact of drink and drugs and decide whether the defendant would have killed the victim if they were sober. If they would then, they can use diminished responsibility, but if not then it will not be available.
• Finally, if the d is suffering from Alcohol Dependency Syndrome then this is regarded as a RMC and the d can raise diminished responsibilty. Under this, the prolonged use of alcohol or drugs has led to brain damage which leaves the individual addicted to the substance; R v Wood.
• To conclude, it would appear that the d satisfies/doesn't satisfy all the requirements for the partial defence of diminished responsibility under s.52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009. They will therefore have/not have their mandatory life sentence for murder removed and replaced with a discretionary sentence by the judge.