Diminished Responsibility and Manslaughter
Diminished Responsibility
Diminished responsibility is also a partial defence specific to murder which if raised
properly can reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter.
There is no mandatory life sentence
Burden of proof is on the defendant to prove on the balance of probability
Provided for in Sec 2(1) of the Homicide Act 1957 – the homicide act talks about this
offence but the 2009 coroners and justice act amended it (you can refer to either
legislation when talking about it but just remain consistent)
Prosecution cannot initially charge manslaughter on the basis of diminished
responsibility; this is something the DEFENCE will raise
Elements of diminished responsibility
Found in Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s.52
1. D must demonstrate an ‘abnormality of mental functioning’ at the time of killing
a. Will need to produce expert medical evidence
b. R b Byrne 1960 2 QB 396 – defines diminished responsibility
c. Requires a link between defendants medically condition and the impact on the
mind
2. The abnormality must arise from a ‘recognised medical condition
a. This part of the act allows for the courts to acknowledge things that might
happen 30 40 50 years from today that were not there at the time of the act. For
example, a new recognized medical condition that arises in 2040 will still be
protected for the act
b. R v Brennan 2014 EWCA Crim 2387
i. Where there is agreement between a recognized medical condition
between the defence and prosecution then the jury must also accept that
medical condition.
1. Ex. Jury cannot say “oh we don’t think they are suffering from
depression”
c. R v Dowds 2012 EWCA Crim 281
i. Courts said although ‘acute intoxication’ is a recognized condition it will
not qualify as such for a defence in DR
ii. Read Lord Hughes judgment
iii. The presence of a recognized medical condition is a necessary but not
always sufficient condition to raise the issue of diminished responsibility
3. Abnormality must substantially impair D’s ability to: is there a connection between the
two? What was the effect of the abnormality of mental functioning? Not all three of the
following have to be satisfied. Was the D substantially impairment from:
a. Understand the nature of his/her conduct or
i. The D could not know what he/she is doing; inability to understand the
nature of his or hers conduct
Diminished Responsibility
Diminished responsibility is also a partial defence specific to murder which if raised
properly can reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter.
There is no mandatory life sentence
Burden of proof is on the defendant to prove on the balance of probability
Provided for in Sec 2(1) of the Homicide Act 1957 – the homicide act talks about this
offence but the 2009 coroners and justice act amended it (you can refer to either
legislation when talking about it but just remain consistent)
Prosecution cannot initially charge manslaughter on the basis of diminished
responsibility; this is something the DEFENCE will raise
Elements of diminished responsibility
Found in Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s.52
1. D must demonstrate an ‘abnormality of mental functioning’ at the time of killing
a. Will need to produce expert medical evidence
b. R b Byrne 1960 2 QB 396 – defines diminished responsibility
c. Requires a link between defendants medically condition and the impact on the
mind
2. The abnormality must arise from a ‘recognised medical condition
a. This part of the act allows for the courts to acknowledge things that might
happen 30 40 50 years from today that were not there at the time of the act. For
example, a new recognized medical condition that arises in 2040 will still be
protected for the act
b. R v Brennan 2014 EWCA Crim 2387
i. Where there is agreement between a recognized medical condition
between the defence and prosecution then the jury must also accept that
medical condition.
1. Ex. Jury cannot say “oh we don’t think they are suffering from
depression”
c. R v Dowds 2012 EWCA Crim 281
i. Courts said although ‘acute intoxication’ is a recognized condition it will
not qualify as such for a defence in DR
ii. Read Lord Hughes judgment
iii. The presence of a recognized medical condition is a necessary but not
always sufficient condition to raise the issue of diminished responsibility
3. Abnormality must substantially impair D’s ability to: is there a connection between the
two? What was the effect of the abnormality of mental functioning? Not all three of the
following have to be satisfied. Was the D substantially impairment from:
a. Understand the nature of his/her conduct or
i. The D could not know what he/she is doing; inability to understand the
nature of his or hers conduct
