Diminished Responsibility (DR)

name all sections in order

s.2(1)

s.2(1)(a)

s.2(1A)

s.2(1)(b)

s.2(1)(c)

intoxication

what Acts are relevant to DR?

S.2 Homicide Act 1957

amended by S.52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009

difference between LOC and DR

DR includes a mental abnormality/AMF

where is the burden of proof?

On the defence

5 key elements of DR

1. defendant suffering from AMF

2. AMF arose from a recognised medical condition

3. AMF substantially impaired D's mental ability

4. substantial impairment of D's ability to do 1/3 things

5. AMF provides an explanation for D's conduct

what is the section for 'an abnormality of mental functioning'

s.2(1)

definition and case of s.2(1)

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

section for 'arose from a recognised medical condition'

s.2(1)(a)

what case emphasised the importance of expert psychiatric evidence

r v brennan

what case says that AMF sufficiency is left to the jury

r v downs

cases for s.2(1)(a) 'arose from a recognised medical condition'

learning difficulties/impaired cognitive development (speake)

psychopathy, paranoia and personality disorder (Byrne)

epilepsy, stress, severe depression (seers)

pre-menstrual syndrome (Reynolds)

mental and physical diseases (Sanderson)

battered woman's syndrome (ahluwalia)

does not have to be an inherited condition or present since birth (Gomez)

section for ''those things' which must be substantially impaired'

s.2(1A)

'those things' which must be substantially impaired

1. to understand the nature of D's conduct

2. to form a rational judgement

3. to exercise self-control

section for 'substantially impaired'

s.2(1)(b)

definition and case of 'substantially impaired'

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

section for 'provides an explanation for the defendant's conduct'

s.2(1)(c)

must there be a causal connection between the AMF and killing

yes

does the AMF have to be the only or most important factor in the killing

no but it must be significant

where should the defence not be able to succeed

where D's mental condition made no difference to their behaviour

rule 1 of intoxication and case

voluntary intoxication on its own is not enough to constitute DR (dowds)

rule 2 and case

D can have the defence if they had an AMF ignoring intoxication effects (dietschmann)

rule 3 and case

alcohol dependency syndrome (ADS) is a recognised medical condition and is allowed the defence (wood)

what did wood state about alcoholism levels

'the D's brain was damaged so that there was gross impairment of his judgement'

OR 'the craving for drink had to be such as to render the D's use of drink involuntary'