Fatal Offences – Voluntary Manslaughter – Diminished Responsibility

Definition of Diminished Responsibility S.52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 replaces S.2(1) of Homicide Act 1957 – correct citation is S.2 Homicide Act 1957: D suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which: Arose from a recognised medical condition Substantially impaired D’s ability to do one of the following: Understand the nature of his conduct Form a rational judgement Exercise self-control Provides an explanation for D’s act or omissions in doing the killing

Abnormality of Mental Functioning which Arose from a Recognised Medical Condition Byrne – psychotic disorders – sexual psychopath’s inability to control his perverted desires Reynolds – post-natal depression English – pre-menstrual tension Ahluwalia – battered wife syndrome Coroners and Justice Act 2009 – any condition in either World Health Organisation’s international classification of diseases American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders If there is a new or emerging condition which is recognised but not on one of the accepted lists, D can call an acknowledged specialist whose work has been validated and it will be up to the jury to consider the evidence

Substantial Impairment Before the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, Homicide Act 1957 required that D’s mental responsibility must be substantially impaired but did not specify in what way Since the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the abnormality of mental functioning must substantially impair D’s ability to: Understand the nature of his conduct; or Form a rational judgement; or Exercise self-control Question of whether there has been substantial impairment will be one for the jury Egan – substantial impairment does not need to mean total impairment but must be more than trivial impairment

Abnormality of Mind Must Provide an Explanation for the Killing Causal element – defence will fail if evidence suggests that D would have killed anyway, irrespective of the abnormality More complicated if D has been drinking alcohol or taking drugs as mental abnormality as a result of intoxication is not included

Intoxication If D suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning, and takes drugs or alcohol and then kills victim, defence may be available even if the voluntary intoxication played a part in the decision to kill Gittens – D killed while suffering from depression and intoxicated. Court held that jury should be directed to disregard the effect of the intoxication and consider whether his depression alone was sufficient to impair his mental responsibility for the act Dietschmann – D killed while suffering from a mental abnormality combined with intoxication. Court held that consideration was whether the abnormality alone substantially impaired his responsibility for the act

Alcohol Dependency Syndrome (Alcoholism) A recognised medical condition that can be used for the defence Wood – where D has an addiction, jury must consider the effect of the alcohol consumed because of the addiction – classed as involuntary drinking. Any drinking which is not because of the addiction is classed as voluntary and its effects can’t be considered. Where there is both voluntary and involuntary drinking, defence can still be pleaded but the jury must only consider the effects of the involuntary consumption

Burden of Proof D who raises the defence has the burden of proving it on a balance of probabilities