DR structure

intro

D may have the partial defence of diminished responsibility under s.2 of the Homicide Act 1957 as amended by s.52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. A successful plea will reduce the offence from murder to voluntary manslaughter. The burden of proving DR is on the defence, on a balance of probabilities. There are five elements that must be satisfied:

1st section

Section 2(1)- Firstly, under s.2(1) D must suffer from an abnormality of mental functioning (AMF), which means that D's mental functioning was so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would call it abnormal (Byrne). Here, [APPLY TO SCENARIO]. This is clearly a state of mind different from that of ordinary people, so far as the reasonable man would consider it abnormal.

2nd section

Section 2(1)(a)- Secondly, under s.2(1)(a) the AMF must arise from a recognised medical condition, mental or physical. Expert medical evidence will be required (Brennan).

[LINK TO SCENARIO W/ RELEVANT CASE and if no diagnonsense = "There is no medical evidence yet, but this could be obtained from a specialist." but if medical evidence = "D has a medical diagnosis."]

3rd section

Section 2(1)(b)- The AMF must substantially impair her ability to do any one of three things

Next it must be proven that the abnormality of mental functioning impaired one or more of the following three things of D: (a) D's ability to understand the nature of their conduct, (b) D's ability to form a rational judgement and/or (c) D's ability to exercise self-control.

On the facts, the defence may be able to submit that D's ability to: [LINK BACK TO SCENARIO:]

4th section

Section 2(1)(b) - 'SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIRED'

Next it must be proven that the defendant's ability to do those three things mentioned above was 'substantially impaired' by the AMF. In the case R v Golds (2016) "substantially impaired" was held to mean a serious degree of impairment and should be left to the jury decide. Here, [APPLY TO SCENARIO]

5th section

Section 2(1)(c) - The last element under s.2(1)(c) is that the AMF must provide an explanation for D's conduct. This means there must be a causal link between the AMF and the act. If they may have killed anyway then it is unlikely to succeed. [LINK BACK TO SCENARIO]

conclude

D is likely to be successful in using this defence. If the defence is successful, it reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter and D will be sentenced at the discretion of the judge up to a maximum of life imprisonment.