Diminished Responsibility Homicide Act 1957 now amended by the Coroners & Jusitce Act 2009

Key points 1.Can only be raised as a defence to murder 2.Is only a partial defence to murder 3.Success means a reduced verdict of Manslaughter - more flexible sentencing 4.The D must raise and prove the defence 5.The standard of proof is lower - on balance of probabilities 6.It is based on having a medical condition that is a factor in causing D to kill. 7.Most D’s successful without having a trial

Put a tick next to the medical conditions that are allowed 1.Pre menstrual tension 2.Depression 3.Battered Wives syndrome 4.Severe jealousy 5.Alcoholism 6.Paranoia

D must prove on balance 4 things: 1.Has a recognised medical condition 2.Which causes an abnormality of mental functioning 3.Which substantially impairs the D from forming a rational judgement, understanding his conduct or exercising self control 4.And the jury believe this provides an explanation for the killing

Has a recognised medical condition 1.Based on established medical knowledge 2.Most available in medical lists in which case it is upto the judge to accept 3.Example American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disordersAmerican Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders 4.If it is a new condition the judge must allow the jury to decide from medical evidence at the trial

Which causes Abnormality of mental functioning 1.Not defined in the Act 2.Jury have to decide from evidence if the D’s behaviour was so different from the reasonable man’s behaviour that they consider it unusual (R v Byrne)R v Byrne 3.The abnormality does not have to permanent 4.Nor does it have to have existed since birth (R v Gomez) 5.Clearly it has to affect the D’s mental capacity 6.It only has to exist at the time of the killing

The medical condition substantially impairs the D mental functioning 1.Substantial doesn't mean the medical condition has to have a large effect on the D’s ability to make decisions 2.The condition must affect the D’s mental condition to more than a trivial extent (R v Lloyd) v Lloyd 3.There can also be other reasons that the D kills as long the medical condition is more than a trivial part of why. 4.Substantial does not have to mean total - its common sense

Medical condition substantially impairs D’s ability to do specific things 1.The act is very specific as to what the medical condition has to affect in the D - there are 3 things. 2.Understand his conduct and kill 3.Form a rational judgment and kill 4.Exercise self control and kill 5.You are looking for evidence in scenarios 6.It will be very clear if you know the case facts

Guess which one of the three things Byrne knew he was killing but his condition meant he couldn’t resist the impulse to do this. Stewart - Alcohol Dependency Syndrome and alcohol made D delusional Simcox - paranoia meant he perceived threats that weren’t really there

Jury on balance believe this explains the reason for killing 1.Jury decide whether or not they believe the medical condition explains the killing 2.D has to prove this on balance of probabilities 3.This will be your concluding statement in problem solving 4.Remember - D not free but now convicted of Manslaughter