VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER: DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY

  • partial defence, reduce from murder to manslaughter

  • AR- unlawful killing, MR intention

  • bop on d to prove on a balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that they had diminished responsibility

  • defined in s2(1) of Homicide Act 1957, and amended by s52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009

D MUST PROVE THEY HAD

  1. an abnormality of mental functioning

  2. which arose from a recognised medical condition

  3. that substantially impaired D’s ability

a) to understand the nature of D’s conduct

b) to form a rational judgement

c) to excessive self-control

  1. provides an explanation for D’s act

ABNORMALITY OF MENTAL FUNCTIONING

R V BYRNE

Sexual psychopath murdered young girl - irresistible impulses due to medical condition. Held to be abnormality of mental functioning.

His state of mind was ‘so different to an ordinary human. that the reasonable person would term it abnormal.’

RECOGNISED MEDICAL CONDITION

  • at least 2 medical professionals to act as expert witnesses in trials

  • R V AHLUWALIA - battered woman syndrome. Suffered domestic violence, rape, food deprivation. Set him on fire during sleep and died as a result of injuries a few days later.

  • R V CAMPBELL- epilepsy and frontal lobe damage. Female hitchhiker killed by D. Suffered AoMF.

  • R V REYNOLDS - post partum syndrome

  • R V VINAGRE- “othello” syndrome

SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIRED

  • s.2 Homocide Act 1957 doesn’t define ‘substantially’, so we rely on case law

  • BYRNE- ‘substantial’ was for jury to decide

  • LLOYD- ‘substantial’ doesn’t mean total, nor trivial or minimal

  • GOLDS- ‘needs to be more than trivial’

a) understand nature of his conduct

  • e.g D thinking he’s killing the devil when its a person

  • e.g cutting off someone’s head when they’re asleep thinking it’ll be funny

b) ability to form a rational judgement

  • may be able to understand his conduct but not able to form rational judgement due to RMC: e.g paranoia, schizophrenia etc

c) excessive self-control

  • BYRNE good e.g, medical evidence showing couldn’t control perverted desires

PROVIDES EXPLANATION FOR D’S CONDUCT

  • s52 of CaJA 2009 introduced this, must cause of be a significant contributing factor in causing D to carry out that conduct

  • must be connection between AoMF and killing

  • not need be only factor, but must be significant

INXTOCIATION

  • R v DI DUCA, R V DOWDS - voluntary inxtocaition is not an AoMF

  • R V DIESTCHMANN - when D is suffering from AoMF and then gets drunk held : ‘Despite the alcohol, has the mental abnormality substantially impaired his mental responsibility of his fatal acts?’

  • R V WOODS, R V TANDY - alcohol dependency syndrome- it is a RMC. Held in this case that:

  1. if long-term abuse of alcohol had caused brain damage, then it can be diminished responsibility

  2. if it has not, then they had to decide whether the alcohol was consumed due to the addiction ‘involuntary inxtociation’ if it was involuntary, it can be DR.