diminished responsibility

The Coroners and Justice act 2009

Section 52 states that a person who kills or is a party to a killing should not be guilty of murder if he was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning:

-which arose from a recognised medical condition

-Substantially impaired the defendant‘s ability to do one or more of the things mentioned in subsection 1a

-provides an explanation for the defendant

Continued

Subsection 1a states those things which the defendant is impaired from doing these are:

• to understand the nature of his/her conduct

• Or form a rational judgement

• To exercise self-control

• The defendant must show one or more of these.

Byrne 1961

This is a leading case where a sexual psychopath strangled a young woman. The evidence showed that because of his medical condition he was unable to control his perverted desires. His condition came within the definition of diminished responsibility. The CoA held that ‘abnormality of mind’ covers the 3 situations identified in the new law: perception of acts, rational judgement of whether the act is right or wrong and the ability to exercise self-control.

Dietschamnn 2003

The defendant killed his victim by repeatedly kicking him because the victim had insulted his dead aunt. He had drank a lot of alcohol and psychiatrists agreed that he was also suffering an adjustment disorder - a depressed grief reaction. However, the defence and prosecution disagreed on whether this substantially impaired his mental responsibility for the killing. The HoL allowed the appeal and a retrial was ordered.

Gittens 1984

The defendant suffered from depression for which he had medication. He took several pills one night and drank a lot of alcohol. He then clubbed his wife and strangled his step-daughter. The conviction for murder was quashed because the trial judge had misdirected the jury. The CoA said that the jury had to decide if the combination of factors excluding the intoxication amounted to a substantial impairment f the defendant‘s responsibility for his acts. This was taken to mean that a defendant could only prove diminished responsibility if he could satisfy the jury that he would have killed because of the abnormality of mental functioning even if he had not been intoxicated.

Tandy 1989

A woman, who was an alcoholic, drank a whole bottle of vodka and then strangled her 11 year old daughter after she had found out that her second husband had interfered with her. The direction by he judge told the jury to decide whether Tandy was suffering from an abnormality arising directly from directly from drinking or whether she was just a drunk.

Tandy’s appeal was dismissed because Tandy had not show that her brain was injured or that her drinking was involuntary.

Wood 2008

The defendant after drinking heavily repeatedly it the victim with a meat cleaver killing him. The medical experts agreed that he was suffering from alcohol dependency syndrome but could not agree whether it ad damaged his brain. The trial judge directed the jury that if they found the defendant had suffered brain damage from drinking alcohol then the defence was available. If he had not suffered brain damage then they had to decide if his dinking as voluntary or not. Only if they found the drinking was involuntary could they use the defence of involuntary manslaughter. Appealed to CoA.

The CoA said the direction was wrong and they quashed the conviction. They considered the judgement in Dietschmann and decided that alcohol dependency could be a source of abnormality of mind (now abnormality of functioning) but this was for the jury to decide.

The law is that the jury has to consider which part of drinking is voluntary and which involuntary. The jury can only consider the effects of

Duca 1959

The CoA held that the immediate effects of taking alcohol or drugs weren’t an injury even if it did have an effect on the brain. The effect is transient and there is no abnormality of mental functioning.

Three part test (Stewart 2009)

• did the defendant form an abnormality of mental functioning? Having ADS didn’t automatically mean that the person had an abnormality. The jury must examine the nature and extent of the abnormality.

• If yes, then was the abnormality caused by the ADS?

• If yes, was the defendant’s mental responsibility substantially impaired.