Diminished responsibility

Question 1

Requirements of the defence

Answer 1

Section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957
D must show they were suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning, arising from a recognised medical condition, which provides an explanation for the killing and substantially impaired their ability to understand the nature of their conduct, form a rational judgment, or exercise self-control

Question 2

Abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition

Answer 2

R v Challen: must be a recognised mental condition, but does not have to be a serious mental illness
R v Brennan: expert evidence must be accepted if there is no contradictory evidence
R v Dowds: voluntary drunkenness is not a recognised medical condition
R v Tandy: chronic alcoholism (so NOT voluntary)
R v Ahluwalia: depression
R v Inglis: depression and PTSD (by analogy other psychiatric conditions such as bipolar)

Question 3

As a result of the abnormality, D’s ability to understand the nature of their conduct, form a rational judgment, or exercise self-control is substantially impaired

Answer 3

Law Commission Report No. 304: example of 10-year-old boy playing video games and later killing another child, not understanding that when a person dies they cannot be revived- not understanding the nature of his conduct
Law Commission Report No. 304: example of a mentally sub-normal boy believing he must follow his brother’s instructions, saying ‘I wouldn’t dream of disobeying my brother and he would never tell me to do something it it was really wrong’
R v Brown: substantial impairment, not complete impairment, required; D may still have some ability to exercise self-control and form a rational judgment but still suffer a substantial impairment if their abilities are limited to a notable extent
R v Golds: “whilst the impairment must indeed pass the merely trivial before it need be considered, it is not the law that any impairment beyond the trivial will suffice”- “must be substantial and appreciable”

Question 4

Abnormality of mental functioning provided an explanation for D’s conduct, in that it was a significant contributing factor in carrying it out

Answer 4

R v Joyce and Kay: both suffered from schizophrenia, both killed while intoxicated, had to show on the balance of probabilities that abnormality of mental functioning provided an explanation- Joyce guilty of manslaughter, Kay guilty of murder

Question 5

Theoretical concerns with the law

Answer 5

Sparks: fundamental flaw; we should be asking whether D would have killed had they not suffered from the abnormality
Mackay: emphasis on medical evidence is problematic- the question of D’s responsibility is not one of medical fact, but of moral judgment
Bluglass: operation of the defence involves a ‘benevolent conspiracy’ between lawyers and doctors to ensure Ds who do not deserve the stigma of a murder conviction are able to avoid it
Griew: there appears to be inconsistent practice amongst psychiatrists