DR (for idiots)

main act

s.52 coroners and justice act 2009

pre-amendment act

s.2 homicide act 1957

type of defence

partial defence

main sections

s.2(1)

s.2(1)(a)

s.2(1a)

s.2(1)(b)

s.2(1)(c)

intoxication

what does s.2(1) state (+case)

abnormality of mental functioning

'a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal' (byrne)

what does s.2(1)(a) state

arose from a recognised medical condition

who is responsible for recognising the medical condition (+case)

jury (dowds)

recognised medical conditions

- learning difficulties (speake)

- psychopathy (byrne)

- epilepsy/stress/depression (seers)

- pms (reynolds)

- mental/physical disease (sanderson)

- bws (ahluwalia)

what does s.2(1a) state

'those things' which must be substantially impaired

a) understand the nature of their conduct

b) form rational judgement

c) self-control

what does s.2(1)(b) state (+case)

'substantially impaired'

serious degree of impairment and should be left to the jury (golds)

what does s.2(1)(c) state

provides explanation for conduct

- causal connection

- does not succeed if amf made no difference to behaviour

- s.2(1b) amf provides explanation if it was at least a significant contributory factor

rules for intoxication (+cases)

1) voluntary is not enough (dowds)

2) defendant has amf arising from medically recognised condition that impaired conduct ignoring intoxication (dietschmann)

3) ads is an amf

'defendant's brain was damaged so that there was gross impairment of his judgement' or 'craving for drink had to be such as to render the defendant's use of drink involuntary' (wood)