Criminal Law- Diminished responsibility
what are the parameters of the defence?
- Diminished Responsibility is a defence ONLY to Murder
- Diminished Responsibility is a Partial Defence – if raised successfully the accused will be acquitted of murder, but convicted of manslaughter
- Rationale of the Defence - D lacks rational capacity
- Burden of proof is on D to establish his/her defence, but only on a balance of probabilities
what is the definition of diminished responsibility
- Section 52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 inserted a new definition of diminished responsibility into section 2 Homicide Act 1957. Must establish:
1. D was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which—
2. arose from a recognised medical condition,
3. substantially impaired D’s ability to do one or more of the things mentioned in subsection (1A), and
4. provides an explanation for D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.
what is abnormality of mental functioning?
- The new law is stricter on the aspect of **abnormality of mental functioning** and the jury will need **expert guidance** as to whether there is an abnormality of mental functioning:
- R v Brennan [2014] EWCA Crim 2387 – unchallenged expert evidence that D had an a**bnormality of mental functioning that arose from a schizotypal disorder and emotionally unstable personality disorder**
Conroy [2017] EWCA Crim 204 – autism spectrum disorder, 3 out of 4 experts stated it substantially impaired his ability to form a rational judgment
what is a recognised medical condition?
Includes physical conditions as well as psychological or psychiatric ones.
Necessary but not always sufficient that the condition is included in one of the diagnostic manuals (WHO International Classification of Diseases ICD-10 or American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-V) - Dowds [2012] EWCA Crim 281
what are some examples of recognised medical conditions?
Foye [2013] EWCA Crim 475 - severe dissocial or psychopathic personality
Squelch [2017] EWCA Crim 204 - paranoid personality disorder
- R v Webb [2011] EWCA Crim 152 – adjustment disorder
- R v Beaver [2015] EWCA Crim 653 – early onset dementia and adjustment disorder
- Brown [2019] EWCA Crim 2317 – PTSD
- Conroy [2017] EWCA Crim 81 – autistic spectrum conditions
what does substanital impairment mean?
R v Golds [2016] UKSC 61 – substantial was not synonymous with "anything more than merely trivial“; it meant "important or weighty”
Squelch [2017] EWCA Crim 204 - normally much better for a trial judge to try to confine the instruction to the actual words of the section without any undue elaboration or gloss
what must the recognised medical condition substantially impair?
- A. Ability to understand nature and quality of his act
- This could mean that the D does not know what he is doing or does not understand the nature of his acts
- Law Commission example – video game playing boy
- B. Form a Rational Judgement
- D’s ability to tell right from wrong substantially impaired.
- Substantial impairment only. If complete impairment defence of insanity may be relevant.
- Law Commission example – mentally subnormal younger brother following instructions of older brother
- C. Exercise Self Control
- Potential overlap with partial defence of loss of control but for loss of control must show normal tolerance and self restraint for loss of control
- Law Commission Example – voices in D’s head which they find difficult to ignore
what does provides an explanation for the killing mean?
S2(1B): An abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for D’s conduct if it causes, or is a significant contributory factor in causing D to carry out that conduct.
The government’s intention was to rule out cases of ‘random coincidence’ – i.e. where there is NO connection between the abnormality and the killing
what are the rules around intoxication?
- Alcoholism/Alcohol Dependency Syndrome
- Tandy [1988] 87 Cr App R 45 – where drinking is involuntary or craving irresistible the defence of diminished responsibility might apply
- Wood [2008] EWCA Crim 1305 - Alcoholism short of brain damage could give rise to the defence depending on the extent and nature of the illness
- R v Bunch [2013] EWCA Crim 2498 –no medical evidence re dependency
- R v Dowds [2012] EWCA Crim 281 Hughes LJ - ‘voluntary acute intoxication is not capable of being relied upon to found diminished responsibility’
- Where D is not an alcoholic but suffers from an abnormality of mental functioning and is intoxicated
- Dietschmann [2003] UKHL 10 - the subsection does not require the abnormality of the mind to be the sole cause ....... the causative effect of the drink does not necessarily prevent an abnormality of the mind suffered by D from substantially impairing his mental responsibility
- R v Joyce & Kay [2017] EWCA Crim 647 - if an abnormality of mental functioning arose from voluntary intoxication, and not from a recognised medical condition, an accused could not avail himself of the partial defence
Dowds
facts:
D stabbed V 60 times, D claimed DIM REP against the charge for murder, an the basis that he was acutely drunk
held:
D was rightly convicted for murder
Voluntary intoxication does not fall within the scope of recognised medical condition
foye
D was already in prison serving life for murder and they killed another prisoner, it was accepted that he had an AMF from a RMC, on the fcats he had planned and intended to kill the deceased, so there was no substantial impairment.
squelch
D is brining a fried to work every day and he starts to become suspicious of her behaviour, squelch has a black out and blames it on his collegue and starts to carry a knife to work, squelchs mother dies and the colleague is siad to have said something and squelch punches him. one day squelch arrives at work and stabs V. he said that he could not explain his actions. expert evidence provides that he has paraniod personality disorder. the experts disagree with 2 feeling it did substantially impair and on did not. he was guilty of murder
webb
webb and his wife had been married for neraly 15 years. the wife suffered from a number of medical issues and webb became her career. his mental health started to suffer and with medical evidence from a number of people that his wife expressed a wish to due. and webb admits to helping his wife take a concoction of medication to end her life along with alcohol. where the overdose was unsuccessful he suffocated his wife, he had an adjustment disorder. he was aquitted of murder and found guilty on manslaughter.
R v Beaver
a husban was caring for his wife who was ill, she had dementia and diabetes. beaver, while havign about 2 hours sleep a night, his wife was often agressive towards him and it was shown he was caring for his wife the best he could however he was not coping very will. one day d stabbed his wife multiple times, killing her. medical experts show he is in the early stages of dimentia himself and suffered from an adjustment disorder. this meant he was more likely to lose control. he was acquitted for murder and convicted of manslaughter
Brown
PTS was a recognised medical condition someone might have an abnormality of mental functioning arising out of
conroy
he lives in a care home and is often violent and he enters the room of another resident, strangling her to try subdue her to take her to his room, however she died. his motivation was he wanted to have sex with her but without her remembering. 4 experts gave evidence that he had a DMF from a RMC. jury convicted of murder, he appealed but the conviction was found to be safe.
R v GOlds
GOld admitted to killing his partner prior to the killing he had sexually assualted her. three medical expers argued that the conditions for DIM REP were satisfied. gold refuseed to give evidence as he argued that he was not in a fair state to do so. the judge directed the jury not to draw any adverse interference by the refusal and did not permit them to hear the opinion of the medical experts
held the judge was entitled to refuse the jury to head evidence of the current meantal state of the D as it would not materially assist them in making a decision
Tandy
woman is an alcoholic and strangles er 11 year old daughter killing her. she drank nearly a whole bottle of vodka on the night she killed her.
held that she was guilty of murder as she only drank 9/10s of the vodka, the fact that she didnt finish it showed that she had some level of control
R v Wood
judge had said you can only think about DIm Rep if the consumption of alcolol was truely involuntary, giving into a craving is not a involuntary act. wood appealed on the basis that the jury was misdirected. appeal was allowed. said as above.
R v Brunch
D murder the victim in front of her husband by stabbing her more than 20 times after the relationship between the two ended, Brunch claimed that he was a heavy drinker and had no recollection of the killing and therefore pleaded DIM REPw. he produced no evidence that he had ADS, a consultant psychiatric said he was not dependant on alcohol and did not have a mental disorder.
medical evidence is a necessity if the defence is to succeed.
R v Dietchmann
D was drunk and killed the victims. medics said that he has a "depressed tired reaction", in other words, he was depressed following the death of his aunt.
as long as the medical condition was the substantial cause of what he did he could plead the defence
R v Joyce and KAy
if an abnormality of mental functioning arose from voluntary intoxication, and not from a recognised medical condition, an accused could not avail himself of the partial defence