Special Defence (DR) - Topic 5

Diminished Responsibility

Definition (AO1)

Where D charged with murder:

-D may prove a defence of diminished responsibility:

-If defence successful because:

• Defence accepted by P pre-trial, or

• Defence accepted by jury

D will be acquitted of murder but will be convicted of (voluntary) manslaughter

A special defence - Only available for murder

A partial defence - If successful, reduces to manslaughter

Defence is based on D’s mental disorder at time of killing - (Can be temporary or permanent)

Diminished Responsibility

Statute

Coroners and Justice Act 2009 s.52

Diminished Responsibility - BOP & SOP

BOP - Under s.2 (2) Homicide Act 1957 - It shall be for the defence to prove that the person charged by virtue of this section is not liable to be convicted of murder

SOP - On balance of probabilities (More likely than not) - Civil standard

Elements Required for Diminished Responsibility

(AO1)

s.52 (1) An abnormality in mental functioning - AMF

(1) (a) Abnormality arise from a recognised medical condition (mental or physical / Temporary or permanent) - RMC

(1) (b) Substantially impaired D’s ability to - SIA:

(1B) Causes or is a significant contributory factor in causing, D to carry out that conduct - EXP

(1A) Relating to (1) (b) - Those things are:

(a) form a rational judgement

(b) Understand nature of D’s conduct

(c) Exercise self-control

Abnormality of Mental Functioning (AMF) s.2 (1)

Definition (AO1)

Common Law definition = A state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings, that a reasonable person would term it abnormal

Exam tip:

Look for abnormalities in:

• D’s perception of physical acts / events, circumstances

  and/or

• D’s ability to exercise will-power to control his physical act

Abnormality of Mental Functioning s.2 (1)

Case (AO3)

(R v Byrne)

D strangled a young woman from sexual desire in YMCA hostel and mutilated her corpse. Seen that inability to control very strong violent urges was such an abnormality

Recognised Medical Condition (RMC) s.2 (1) (a)

Definition (AO1)

The AMF must arise from a RMC. This enables expert witnesses to refer to internally accepted classifications of mental (medical) conditions i.e. The World health Organisation ‘WHO’

(The RMC may be permanent or temporary ‘providing’ it exists at the time of killing)

Temporary RMC

Case (AO3)

(R v Dowds)

Examples of RMC

• Alcohol dependency syndrome (not voluntary intox) (R v Stewart)

• Clinical depression (R v Ahluwalia)

• Battered spouse syndrome (R v Hobson)

• PMS

• Dementia

• Asperger’s syndrome

• ADHD

• PTSD (R v Blackman [marine A])

Developmental immaturity (D aged 10-18) is not RMC and D’s judgement being restricted by biological / social / environmental factors may not rely on DR.

Substantial Impairment of D’s Ability (SIA) s.1 (b)

D must prove that D’s abnormality of mental functioning:

-Substantially impaired his ability to do any of the following:

• Understand The nature of D’s conduct

• To form a rational judgement

• To exercise self-control.

Meaning of substantial impairment - Substantial should be given its ordinary meaning (Important or weighty)

Substantial impairment meaning

Case (AO3)

(R v Golds)

D killed his partner.

D’s ability to understand the nature of his conduct s.(1A) (a)

Definition (AO1)

D must show that because of his AMF, he had an impaired ability to recognise the nature of what he did or the consequences of his actions

i.e. Not understanding that a dead person cannot be revived

D’s ability to form a rational judgement s. (1A) (b)

Definition (AO1)

D must show that because of his AMF, he was less able to reach a reasoned/rational opinion than a person who was not suffering from abnormality of mental functioning.

D’s ability to form a rational judgement s. (1A) (b)

Case (AO3)

(R v Ahluwalia)

D was long-abused wife who developed depression and believed it was necessary to burn V to death. Her ability to consider rational alternatives to ending the abuse was impaired by the depression

D’s ability to exercise self-control s. (1A) (c)

Definition (AO1)

D must show that due to AMF, he was less able to control his conduct.

e.g. D believed he was possessed by the devil, who was dictating his behaviour

D’s ability to exercise self-control s. (1A) (c)

Case (AO3)

(R v Byrne)

D was a man suffering from necrophilia, who lost control and killed a woman. His abnormality of mental functioning significantly impaired his ability to exercise self-control.

An Explanation for Killing s. (1) (c)

Definition (AO1)

D must prove that his AMF provides an explanation for his conduct in killing.

The AMF will be an explanation if it Caused or was a significant contributory factor in the killing. (no requirement for proof of causal connection - makes defence narrower)

For an explanation, D’s AMF need not be:

• The only Cause

• Main cause

• Most important factor

(Explanation will be sufficient if there is some causal connection / link between D’s AMF and the killing)

DR regarding D being voluntarily intoxicated

Rules (AO1)

1. D suffering from Alcohol (or drug) dependency syndrome

2. D voluntarily intoxicated with no AMF

3. D voluntarily intoxicated with AMF

D suffering from Alcohol (or drug) dependency syndrome

Rule (AO1)

If D is suffering from alcohol (or drug) dependency syndrome then this is a RMC and may be diminished responsibility (DR)

D suffering from Alcohol (or drug) dependency syndrome

Case (AO3)

(R v Stewart)

D voluntarily intoxicated with no AMF

Rule (AO1)

When D is vol. intox. by alcohol / drugs and has no AMF then for policy reasons, D may not use this to claim DR

D voluntarily intoxicated with no AMF

Case (AO3)

(R v Dowds)

D was convicted of murder after killing his partner while heavily intoxicated. The court ruled that voluntary intoxication does not negate responsibility.

D voluntarily intoxicated with AMF

Rule (AO1)

If D vol. into. and was suffering from AMF caused by RMC, then he may be able to rely on DR provided D’s abnormality of mental function was found to have contributed to the killing, disregarding the intoxication.

D voluntarily intoxicated with AMF

Case (AO3)

(R v Dietschmann)

D was charged with murder after killing a friend while intoxicated but suffering from a recognized medical condition. The court held that if the mental abnormality contributed to the act, intoxication could be disregarded for the purposes of diminished responsibility.

D was still held to be guilty