TERM 2 SEMINAR 7
Defences- Diminished Responsibility and Intoxication
Preparing Effective Notes for Seminars and Exams
Seminar 7 Term 2 will focus on the two defences of Diminished Responsibility (DR) and Intoxication.
Using DR as an example, this seminar brief will give you guidance on how to prepare notes on a
particular topic effectively and thoroughly so that you are well equipped to answer problem
questions in both seminars and exams.
Read this guidance first and then complete the tasks set out on page 4 of this seminar brief.
GUIDANCE- DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY
A: GATHERING TOGETHER THE INFORMATION
Firstly, you will need to find and, in this order, familiarise yourselves with
The lecture slides on DR- on ELE under ‘Homicide-Lectures 12 and 13’
Your lecture notes on DR- Lecture 13
The relevant section from one of the textbooks. For example
Clarkson and Keating: sections 8-134 to 8-148
Monahan: section 5.5
Smith, Hogan and Ormerod: section 13.2
Herring: chapter 5 section 5
B: BUILDNG AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW- THE BASICS
1. With defences, the first question you should ask yourself is ‘in what circumstances does this
defence apply?’ Remind yourself that DR is a partial defence in cases of MURDER ONLY. Remind
yourself of the effect of a successful plea of DR- that it will reduce a murder conviction to a
conviction for voluntary manslaughter.
2. Where the source of law is a statutory provision, what does that statute say?
You will remember that DR is a statutory defence contained in S2 Homicide Act 1957 (as amended
by S52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009)
Look carefully at the words to work out what the elements of the offence are. You can look at the
lecture slides or your notes or go to the provision itself via
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200925/section52
4
, You will see that there are 4 elements to the defence. D needs to be
suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which
Arose from a recognised medical condition
Substantially impaired D’s ability to understand the nature of his conduct, form a rational
judgment or exercise self-control
Provides an explanation for D’s actions or omissions in being a party to the killing
3. Is there anything else in the statutory provision that we need to take account of? Yes, S52 (1B)
tells us that an abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for D’s conduct if it
causes D to carry out the offences or if it is a significant contributory factor.
C: ENHANCING KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING
There are a number of words or phrases in S52 that need interpretation or explanation (in bold and
italics above).
1. The next stage is to look at the slides together with your lecture notes. Do they give any further
help here? Usually the lectures will give you the basic framework of an offence or defence.
Slide 33 tells that that an abnormality of mental functioning means a state of mind ‘so
different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it
abnormal’ (Byrne 1957)
Slide 34 tells us that expert evidence is needed to decide whether there is a recognised
medical condition (Bunch 2013) and refers to DSM V. The slide also references
Blackman (2017) - if you look at your lecture notes you should see that in Blackman the
courts acknowledged that ‘adjustment disorder of moderate severity’ could be a
recognised medical condition.
Slide 35 quotes the SC judgment in Golds (216) which gives an explanation of
substantial in the context of DR.
Slide 36 covers the requirement that D’s abnormality of mental functioning should
provide an explanation for his conduct and we know from S52 (1B) that that
abnormality needs to be a cause of or significant contributory factor in D’s conduct. How
does the case of Conroy (2017) help here?
2. Now read the relevant section of your chosen text book. The basic framework given in lectures
needs to be supplemented by your reading. For example, if you read Clarkson and Keating you
will read about the background to the changes to the Homicide Act 1957 brought in by the
Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and about the relationship between law and psychiatry. If you
read Monahan, you could add the following to your notes on the law on DR
The burden of proving DR lies with D and the standard of proof is the balance of
probability. This ‘reverse burden’ does not violate Article 6.2 ECHR (Lambert, Ali and
Jordan [2001] WLR 211)
An expert witness (psychiatrist) should give a view on all 4 elements of the offence
(Brennan 2014)
4
Defences- Diminished Responsibility and Intoxication
Preparing Effective Notes for Seminars and Exams
Seminar 7 Term 2 will focus on the two defences of Diminished Responsibility (DR) and Intoxication.
Using DR as an example, this seminar brief will give you guidance on how to prepare notes on a
particular topic effectively and thoroughly so that you are well equipped to answer problem
questions in both seminars and exams.
Read this guidance first and then complete the tasks set out on page 4 of this seminar brief.
GUIDANCE- DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY
A: GATHERING TOGETHER THE INFORMATION
Firstly, you will need to find and, in this order, familiarise yourselves with
The lecture slides on DR- on ELE under ‘Homicide-Lectures 12 and 13’
Your lecture notes on DR- Lecture 13
The relevant section from one of the textbooks. For example
Clarkson and Keating: sections 8-134 to 8-148
Monahan: section 5.5
Smith, Hogan and Ormerod: section 13.2
Herring: chapter 5 section 5
B: BUILDNG AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW- THE BASICS
1. With defences, the first question you should ask yourself is ‘in what circumstances does this
defence apply?’ Remind yourself that DR is a partial defence in cases of MURDER ONLY. Remind
yourself of the effect of a successful plea of DR- that it will reduce a murder conviction to a
conviction for voluntary manslaughter.
2. Where the source of law is a statutory provision, what does that statute say?
You will remember that DR is a statutory defence contained in S2 Homicide Act 1957 (as amended
by S52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009)
Look carefully at the words to work out what the elements of the offence are. You can look at the
lecture slides or your notes or go to the provision itself via
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200925/section52
4
, You will see that there are 4 elements to the defence. D needs to be
suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which
Arose from a recognised medical condition
Substantially impaired D’s ability to understand the nature of his conduct, form a rational
judgment or exercise self-control
Provides an explanation for D’s actions or omissions in being a party to the killing
3. Is there anything else in the statutory provision that we need to take account of? Yes, S52 (1B)
tells us that an abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for D’s conduct if it
causes D to carry out the offences or if it is a significant contributory factor.
C: ENHANCING KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING
There are a number of words or phrases in S52 that need interpretation or explanation (in bold and
italics above).
1. The next stage is to look at the slides together with your lecture notes. Do they give any further
help here? Usually the lectures will give you the basic framework of an offence or defence.
Slide 33 tells that that an abnormality of mental functioning means a state of mind ‘so
different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it
abnormal’ (Byrne 1957)
Slide 34 tells us that expert evidence is needed to decide whether there is a recognised
medical condition (Bunch 2013) and refers to DSM V. The slide also references
Blackman (2017) - if you look at your lecture notes you should see that in Blackman the
courts acknowledged that ‘adjustment disorder of moderate severity’ could be a
recognised medical condition.
Slide 35 quotes the SC judgment in Golds (216) which gives an explanation of
substantial in the context of DR.
Slide 36 covers the requirement that D’s abnormality of mental functioning should
provide an explanation for his conduct and we know from S52 (1B) that that
abnormality needs to be a cause of or significant contributory factor in D’s conduct. How
does the case of Conroy (2017) help here?
2. Now read the relevant section of your chosen text book. The basic framework given in lectures
needs to be supplemented by your reading. For example, if you read Clarkson and Keating you
will read about the background to the changes to the Homicide Act 1957 brought in by the
Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and about the relationship between law and psychiatry. If you
read Monahan, you could add the following to your notes on the law on DR
The burden of proving DR lies with D and the standard of proof is the balance of
probability. This ‘reverse burden’ does not violate Article 6.2 ECHR (Lambert, Ali and
Jordan [2001] WLR 211)
An expert witness (psychiatrist) should give a view on all 4 elements of the offence
(Brennan 2014)
4
