Diminished responsibility is a partial defence to the offence of murder and is governed under section
two of the homicide act 1957 but was later amended by section fifty two of the coroners and justice
act 2009. There are four elements of diminished responsibility which must be satisfied to be eligible
for the defence.
The first element is the abnormality of mental functioning. This is tested through the theory that the
defendant is so different from ordinary people that the reasonable man will find it abnormal. The
case of Byrne demonstrates when this element applies. In this case the defendant was a sexual
psychopath who killed a young woman. He was unable to control his perverted desires and as a
result successfully claimed diminished responsibility as he has an abnormality mental functioning.
The second element is a recognised medical condition. Some examples of this are severe depression,
schizophrenia and a drug or alcohol dependency. The case of Brown demonstrates when one
successfully claims diminished responsibility from the element. In this, a man murdered his wife with
a hammer. He claimed diminished responsibility because he had severe depression as a result of the
divorce.
The third element is substantially impaired. This states that the recognised medical condition must
substantially impair the defendants mental responsibility to do one of three gateways: understand
the nature and conduct of their actions, make a rational judgement and exercise self-control. The
case of Golds demonstrates when this occurs. In this, the defendant admitted to killing his partner.
The substantially impaired must be something more than minimal. Golds was originally found guilty
of murder but on appeal, was found to be eligible for diminished responsibility as the judge
misdirected the jury by not including substantially impaired.
The fourth element is providing an explanation. This means that there must be a casual link between
the defendant’s mental abnormality and the killing.
However, this law also considers if the defendant kills and is intoxicated. If the defendant is just
intoxicated, they would not receive the defence as they would be considered reckless when they
start drinking. If the defendant is intoxicated but also has a recognised medical condition or an
abnormality of mental functioning, the judge would be told to ignore the intoxication and focus on if
the defendant would still receive the defence. Finally, if the defendant has an alcohol or drug
dependency, they would receive the defence because it is considered a recognised medial condition.
The case of Dietschmann explains this. In this case, the defendant’s family member had died and as a
result, he suffered from adjustment disorder. The victim broke his watch that his later family
member had given to him. In response to this, the defendant kicked the victim to death. He was
intoxicated at the time but despite this, he still had a recognised medical condition and received the
defence as a result.
two of the homicide act 1957 but was later amended by section fifty two of the coroners and justice
act 2009. There are four elements of diminished responsibility which must be satisfied to be eligible
for the defence.
The first element is the abnormality of mental functioning. This is tested through the theory that the
defendant is so different from ordinary people that the reasonable man will find it abnormal. The
case of Byrne demonstrates when this element applies. In this case the defendant was a sexual
psychopath who killed a young woman. He was unable to control his perverted desires and as a
result successfully claimed diminished responsibility as he has an abnormality mental functioning.
The second element is a recognised medical condition. Some examples of this are severe depression,
schizophrenia and a drug or alcohol dependency. The case of Brown demonstrates when one
successfully claims diminished responsibility from the element. In this, a man murdered his wife with
a hammer. He claimed diminished responsibility because he had severe depression as a result of the
divorce.
The third element is substantially impaired. This states that the recognised medical condition must
substantially impair the defendants mental responsibility to do one of three gateways: understand
the nature and conduct of their actions, make a rational judgement and exercise self-control. The
case of Golds demonstrates when this occurs. In this, the defendant admitted to killing his partner.
The substantially impaired must be something more than minimal. Golds was originally found guilty
of murder but on appeal, was found to be eligible for diminished responsibility as the judge
misdirected the jury by not including substantially impaired.
The fourth element is providing an explanation. This means that there must be a casual link between
the defendant’s mental abnormality and the killing.
However, this law also considers if the defendant kills and is intoxicated. If the defendant is just
intoxicated, they would not receive the defence as they would be considered reckless when they
start drinking. If the defendant is intoxicated but also has a recognised medical condition or an
abnormality of mental functioning, the judge would be told to ignore the intoxication and focus on if
the defendant would still receive the defence. Finally, if the defendant has an alcohol or drug
dependency, they would receive the defence because it is considered a recognised medial condition.
The case of Dietschmann explains this. In this case, the defendant’s family member had died and as a
result, he suffered from adjustment disorder. The victim broke his watch that his later family
member had given to him. In response to this, the defendant kicked the victim to death. He was
intoxicated at the time but despite this, he still had a recognised medical condition and received the
defence as a result.
