Diminished responsibility
However, the D may be able to use the partial defence of diminished responsibility as contained in
s.52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
In order for the D to successfully plead for the partial defence of dismissed responsibility the
following steps need to be proven.
Firstly, s.52(1) states that the D must be su ering from an abnormality of mental functioning (R v
Byrne). In this case...
S.52(1)(a) provides that such abnormality of mental functioning must arise form a recognised
medical condition, as contained in the World Health Organisation's International Classi cation of
Diseases. In this case...
Alcohol Dependence Syndrome can amount to an abnormality of mental functioning (R v Wood).
Secondly, s.52(1)(b) examines whether D’s a abnormality of mental functioning substantially
impairs D’s ability to (a) understand the nature of his/her actions, (b) form a rational judgement, or
(c) exercise self-control. In this case, D’s ability to (a)/(b)/(c) had been impaired as...
R v Lloyd states that substantial means more than minimal or trivial. However, the abnormality
need not to be total as con rmed in R v Golds.
Thirdly, s.52(1)(c) asks whether the abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for
D’s acts or omissions in doing or being party to the killing, as stated in s.52(1B), is a signi cant
contributory factor (i.e. there needs to be a causal link between the abnormality of mental
functioning and the the killing). In this case...
If the D is intoxicated but also has an abnormality of mental functioning then the defence can be
used if they still would have killed because of the abnormality of mental functioning and the
intoxication (R v Dietschmann). Intoxication can, presumably, include drugs.
However, the abnormality of mental functioning is not available if the reason they have killed is
because they are intoxicated and they do not have an abnormality of mental functioning.
The D would probably be able/not able to use the partial defence of loss of diminished
responsibility that would reduce his/her conviction from murder to a a manslaughter and his/her
sentence would now be at the discretion of the judge.
fi ff fi fi
However, the D may be able to use the partial defence of diminished responsibility as contained in
s.52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
In order for the D to successfully plead for the partial defence of dismissed responsibility the
following steps need to be proven.
Firstly, s.52(1) states that the D must be su ering from an abnormality of mental functioning (R v
Byrne). In this case...
S.52(1)(a) provides that such abnormality of mental functioning must arise form a recognised
medical condition, as contained in the World Health Organisation's International Classi cation of
Diseases. In this case...
Alcohol Dependence Syndrome can amount to an abnormality of mental functioning (R v Wood).
Secondly, s.52(1)(b) examines whether D’s a abnormality of mental functioning substantially
impairs D’s ability to (a) understand the nature of his/her actions, (b) form a rational judgement, or
(c) exercise self-control. In this case, D’s ability to (a)/(b)/(c) had been impaired as...
R v Lloyd states that substantial means more than minimal or trivial. However, the abnormality
need not to be total as con rmed in R v Golds.
Thirdly, s.52(1)(c) asks whether the abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for
D’s acts or omissions in doing or being party to the killing, as stated in s.52(1B), is a signi cant
contributory factor (i.e. there needs to be a causal link between the abnormality of mental
functioning and the the killing). In this case...
If the D is intoxicated but also has an abnormality of mental functioning then the defence can be
used if they still would have killed because of the abnormality of mental functioning and the
intoxication (R v Dietschmann). Intoxication can, presumably, include drugs.
However, the abnormality of mental functioning is not available if the reason they have killed is
because they are intoxicated and they do not have an abnormality of mental functioning.
The D would probably be able/not able to use the partial defence of loss of diminished
responsibility that would reduce his/her conviction from murder to a a manslaughter and his/her
sentence would now be at the discretion of the judge.
fi ff fi fi
