1. Starter:
Murder or Manslaughter?
On the cards in front of you
are 12 situations.
All of you need to decide
whether D would be liable for
the death of V.
Most of you will be able to
explain why you have reached
that conclusion.
Some of you will be able to
divide those that are liable for
the death into murder and
manslaughter.
3. Introduction:
What is diminished responsibility?
Student Task: 1. What element of the crime is it
Look at the case reports in targeted at?
front of you.
2. What must you be suffering from to
All of these are cases where be able to plead it successfully?
the issue of diminished
responsibility was raised 3. What sort of conditions are covered
by the defence?
Using the information
in there, and your 4. Who decides on your liability for
manslaughter?
own knowledge, see if
you can work out the AO2: Can you identify
answers to these any issues or problems
questions: with DR?
4. What is voluntary manslaughter?
Homicide Act 1957 &
Coroners and Justice Act
2009
Diminished Loss of Control Survivor of a suicide
Responsibility pact
s.2 as amended by s.52 ss.54-5 s.4
Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act 1965
To show your understanding, complete the questions on p.2.
5. Old vs New
Can you spot the key elements of the two offences?
And the changes?
6. The Basics of pleading it
Diminished responsibility is a defence
Why do we need it? Proof and getting before
the jury...
Cause the law on insanity and
automatism is nuts! And the You argue it, but only if the
mandatory life sentence isn’t reasonable jury would think
far behind. you’ve got a case!
Moyle 2008
Why wouldn’t you
Sutcliffe 1981
want to plead it? What might
influence a judge to
withdraw it?
7. Element One:
Abnormality of Mental Functioning
R v Byrne (1960)
“ state of mind so different from that of
an ordinary human being that the
reasonable man would term it abnormal.”
“The mind’s activities in all its aspects”
8. Starter:
Can you spot the problems with this
paragraph?
Diminished responsibility is a partial defence, which D may only argue to murder. It has
Diminished responsibility is a complete defence, which D may only argue to murder. It
most recently been reformed in the Coroners and and Justice 2009, which updated and
has most recently been reformed in the Coroners Justice Act Act 1957, which updated
and clarified the law.
clarified the law.
D must prove the defence beyond all reasonable doubt,and must advance medical
D must prove the defence on balance of probablilities, and must advance medical
evidence to support his argument. The majority of DR cases end up before a before a
evidence to support his argument. The majority of DR cases do not end up jury, who
jury, who have to judgesanity of a defendant.
have to judge the the sanity of a defendant.
There are fourthree elements to the defence, which need to be proven. Firstly,D suffering
There are elements to the defence, which need to be proven. Firstly, was was D
from an abnormality of mental functioning, whichdefined in Burn as a as ‘a state of mind
suffering from an abnormality of mind, which is is defined in Byrne state of mind so
so different from the ordinary that it is abnormal’. In addition, this must be caused by a
different from the ordinary that it is abnormal’. In addition, this must be caused by a
recognised medical condition. This is quite a wide category and has included depression
(Seers), epilepsy (Campbell), post-traumatic Stress (Bradley) and postand post natal
(Seers), epilepsy (Ahluwalia), post-traumatic Stress (Tony Martin) natal depression
depression (Reynolds).
(Reynolds).
The final two elements require D to be substantially impaired within the wording of the
act, and for his abnormality to have been thecause of the killing. This last decision has
act, and for his abnormality to have been a cause of the killing. This last decision has
been welcomed by doctors.
9. CONDITION? CASE? Element Two:
Psychopathy R v Byrne (1960) Recognised Medical
Paranoia R v Martin (Tony)
2001
Condition
Student Thinking:
Epilepsy R v Campbell (1997)
What about Mr Higginbotham?
Depression R v Seers (1984)
R v Gittens (1984)
Has the law lost its merciful origins?
Premenstral tension R v English
(unreported) 1981
Postnatal Depression R v Reynolds (1988)
PTSD R v Bradley (2007)
Asperger‟s syndrome R v Reynolds (2004)
Battered Women‟s R v Ahluwalia (1992)
Syndrome
R v Thornton No.2
(1995)
10. Element Three:
Substantially Impaired
In the Act, it actually
Lloyd 1967 specifies what is meant by
this, and D may argue any
The word 'substantial' in the of these.
1957 Act did not mean
total, nor did it mean trivial Understand the nature of
or minimal. It was something their conduct
in between and Parliament
had left it to juries to decide The ability to form
on the evidence. rational judgement
Confirmed by The ability to exercise
Brown 2011 control
11. What‟s the case?
Can you identify the facts or the name of the case?
1. Precedent can be deadly!
2. My mind is burning with one desire...
3. I told you I’d do it!
4. Not a perfect plan to reach France...
5. He was a bit too eagr to break in (hic!)
6. Depression isn’t everything (not when it
comes to manslaughter!)
Can you
identify the
7. They really were coming to get me!
area the
case applies
8. The baby made me do it.
to?
12. A particular problem:
What if intoxication “substantially impaired” D
What’s the issue?
D is intoxicated and suffers from an D’s AoMF is caused by the
unrelated AoMF intoxication
Despite the drink
Gittens
was D sufficiently
impaired
Egan If sober would he
have been impaired
Dietschmann
13. Dietschmann
Read the enclosed law report
1. What are the facts of the case? and answer the questions:
2. On what grounds was D arguing diminished
responsibility?
3. What is the general rule on intoxication and
diminished responsibility?
4. When can drink give rise to a s.2 Homicide Act
1957 defence?
5. What is the ratio of the case?
6. Does s.2 require the abnormality of mind to be
the sole cause of D‟s acts in killing?
7. What is the question to be put to the jury when
assessing whether the impairment is sufficient?
8. Which case did they follow: Egan or Gittens?
Why?
14. A particular problem:
What if intoxication “substantially impaired” D
What’s the issue?
D is intoxicated and suffers from an D’s AoMF is caused by the
unrelated AoMF intoxication
Must cause brain
Tandy
damage or irresistible
impulse to drink.
The clear lines drawn in Tandy are
Wood no longer appropriate. It is the
overall syndrome, not the nature of
one drink as voluntary.
Stewart
15. Can intoxication alone be enough for
„substantially impaired‟?
This is where D does not suffer from Alcohol Dependency Syndrome
[ADS], but is just drunk. Is it enough to be a medical condition under s.2?
The official guides to mental conditions, do list „acute intoxication‟ as a
condition!
R v Dowds 2012
D killed his partner by stabbing her over 60
times. He was a binge drinker. As he himself
put it, he could choose when to drink, but
when drinking couldn’t stop.
Does he have a defence?
16. D‟s abnormality must provide an
explanation for the killing
“significant causal factor”
Explains why diminished responsibility mitigates liability for
murder (the reason it’s an excuse!)
... but it really doesn’t fit with modern medicine and
Student task: psychiatric notions of explanation – can you just blame the
To show your condition for the reactions of the
understanding, defendant? How do you tell the
answer the two difference?
questions, using
supporting cases to
explain your
conclusions!
17. Applying the Law
Are these guys liable for the manslaughter of the victims?
Simon deliberately kills many Bob, who was suffering from
women, claiming he was driven by depression and an alcoholic,
God to rid the world of prostitutes stabbed his brother Jim to death
(although several of his victims after drinking ½ bottle of whiskey.
were not prostitutes). Medical Bob had just been prescribed
experts all agree that he is a medication for the depression and
paranoid schizophrenic. thought that his brother had been
stealing them and replacing them
with sugar pills. He usually drank
vodka, but had none in the house.
18. AO2 Reform:
What else could
we do?
“Developmental
immaturity”
Draft Criminal
Code:
“such mental abnormality as
would be substantial enough
to reduce the charge... to
No manslaughter.”
mandatory Burden of Proof?
life
sentence?
19. Developing Your AO2:
How accurate are these statements?
1. It should be a mitigating factor in sentencing instead (the Spencer/Lloyd Amendment)
2. The new version brings the law into line with medical knowledge.
3. It is imposing an unfair burden of proof on the defence
4. It classes those in abusive relationships as “abnormal” in some way.
5. The new defence provides a much more strict approach to the interpretation of ‘abnormality of
mental functioning’ and doesn’t allow the same flexibility as the old law. R v Higginbotham (2004)
6. It is almost impossible to separate intoxication and inherent causes.
7. The use of the defence can involve a range of overly complex and legal terminology which can be
difficult for a jury to understand.
8. The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 is only a halfway effective reform. The government only
included it because they wanted to reform provocation.
20. Starter:
How well did you understand?
Working in pairs or threes: match up the cases to the facts and the right
element of the definition!
Area of
Case Facts...
application
R v Byrne I’m burning for you, Abnormality
even if I am the
village psycho. of Mental
Functioning
21. Section C Questions
20 marks (one grade!)
All AO2
Definitions are key!
Address each statement
separately
No cases or statutes
Use bullet points and
names!
Conclude clearly
23. Statement A: Sam would be liable for the murder of Statement B: Sam would not be able to argue
Susie as he intends to cause her serious harm. diminished responsibility as he was not suffering from
an abnormality of mental functioning
Sam has recently been feeling very down
as his girlfriend Susie has left him. He has
been to the doctor, who has put him on
medication to help. One night Sam
meets his friend Mike for drinks, and
Statement C: Sam would not be over the course of a couple of
able to argue diminished Statement D: Sam would be able
hours, consumes a large quantity of to argue diminished responsibility
responsibility as he was not alcohol. On the way home, he breaks
substantially impaired at the time as he was intoxicated at the time
into Susie’s house and strangles her. of Susie’s death.
of the death
24. Statement A: Jim cannot plead diminished responsibility over Statement B: Jim can still plead diminished responsibility to the
Louis’ death as he was suffering from an abnormality of mental death of Louis despite the alcohol as he was still substantially
functioning. impaired.
Jim, who is on medication for an
adjustment disorder, drinks half a bottle
of vodka with his friend, Louis. Jim,
thinking that Louis has stolen his vodka,
attacks him with a claw hammer, causing
him serious injuries. Sebastian, the
Statement C: Jim is still responsible for paramedic comes to help, but accidently Statement D: Steven is not
the death of Louis despite Sebastian’s breaks Louis’ rib, puncturing his heart.
responsible for Louis’ death as he has
actions. Louis is put onto a life support machine
only switched off the life support
which is switched off by Steven, who is machine.
trying to save the hospital money.
25. Plenary:
Answer one of these questions
Examine the issues with the defence raised by the
A case of Brown.
B
Why is the case of Byrne important to the law on
diminished responsibility?
C Identify two conditions which may be enough for a
pleading of DR under the law and illustrate them with a
case
D Explain why we allow some defendants to plead
diminished responsibility
E What is meant by voluntary manslaughter?
