Conclusion Introduction The defence is defined in s.2(1) of the Homicide Act 1957 as substituted by s.

.52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

It provides that: 1. (1) A person (D) who i!!s or is a party to the i!!in" of another is not to be convicted of #$rder if D was s$fferin" fro# an abnor#a!ity of #enta! f$nctionin" which% a) arose fro# a reco"nised #edica! condition& b) s$bstantia!!y i#paired D's abi!ity to do one or #ore of the thin"s #entioned in s$bsection (1A)& and c) provides an e(p!anation for D's acts and o#issions in doin" or bein" a party to the i!!in". 1A. Those thin"s are% a) to $nderstand the nat$re of D's cond$ct) b) to for# a rationa! *$d"#ent) c) to e(ercise se!f+contro!. 1,. -or the p$rposes of s$bsection (1)(c)& an abnor#a!ity of #enta! f$nctionin" provides an e(p!anation for D.s cond$ct if it ca$ses& or is a si"nificant contrib$tory factor in ca$sin"& D to carry o$t that cond$ct. provides that a s$ccessf$! p!ea of di#inished responsibi!ity red$ces !iabi!ity fro# #$rder to #ans!a$"hter. If D p!eads di#inished responsibi!ity& then he #$st prove it on the ba!ance of probabi!ities The defence is avai!ab!e to those char"ed with #$rder as principa!s or secondary parties b$t not to those char"ed with atte#pted #$rder

ection 2(!) "HA# s.2(2) A$ailable of defence

1%/a"e

1st element .52 1(a)& Coroners and Justice Act 2009 A0-+ arise fro# reco"nised #edica! condition Introd$ction Abnormal 'edical (unctionin) (A0-) preferred to abnor#a!ity of #ind (o!d !aw definition) 1o !isted in the Act ,$t Ass$#ed by 2ovt that reco"ni3ed #edica! condition inc!$ded physica!& psychiatric and psycho!o"ica! In which accepted by c!assificatory syste#s inc!$din" *H+,s IC-&10 classification of diseases and -ia)nostice and tatistical 'anual of 'ental -isorders (- ') p$b!ished by A#erican /sychiatric Association o reco"nised psychoses inc!$din" schi3ophrenia & o #ood disorders s$ch as #ania & depression and ne$roses s$ch as the phobias o post+tra$#atic stress disorder& o conditions !i e de#entia o epi!epsy 4) 4 o ordinary *ea!o$sy wi!! not a#o$nt to an abnor#a!ity of #enta! f$nctionin" arisin" fro# a reco"nised #edica! condition& #orbid or patho!o"ica! *ea!o$sy #i"ht. (. $ /ina)re) o 5ow I6 Dependin" on the overa!! !eve! of -ran 's inte!!ect$a! abi!ity this #ay a#o$nt to #enta! retardation which is reco"nised as a #enta! condition by the 7or!d 8ea!th 9r"anisation I:D+1;. It is for the *$ry to decide on the basis of the #edica! evidence and other re!evant circ$#stances whether the de"ree of retardation s$ffered by -ran a#o$nted to an abnor#a!ity of #enta! f$nctionin" . $ -i0 <1=>1? :o$nse! ar"$in" that the *$ry co$!d arrive at a conc!$sion witho$t D ca!!in" #edica! evidence. The *$d"e r$!ed that medical e$idence 1as necessar2 to estab!ish the basis of the defence

D did not s$b#it #edica! evidence

1o

2%/a"e

0edica! evidence no contradicted& *$ry bo$nd to accept4 /rovided no other circ$#stances

. $ anders <1==1? 7here the defence of di#inished responsibi!ity is raised to a char"e of #$rder& and the #edica! evidence in s$pport is $ne@$ivoca! and $ncontradicted& the *$d"e sho$!d direct the *$ry to accept it& if there are no other circ$#stances to consider.

0edica! evidence no contradicted& *$ry bo$nd to accept4 /rovided there are other circ$#stances

. $ anders <1==1?
At D.s tria! for #$rder& one defence psychiatrist said that D had been s$fferin" fro# an abnor#a!ity of #ind d$e to the effects of the disease) the other said that he had been s$fferin" fro# an abnor#a!ity of #ind d$e to inherent ca$ses. They a"reed that his responsibi!ity for his actions was s$bstantia!!y i#paired. The prosec$tion accepted that D was s$fferin" fro# an abnor#a!ity of the #ind& b$t ar"$ed that it had not di#inished D.s responsibi!ity for what he did& beca$se of the e(tent of the advance p!annin". D was convicted of #$rder. 8e!d& dis#issin" the appea!& that althou)h the e$idence of the 3s2chiatrists had been une4ui$ocal and uncontradicted5 there had been other circumstances for the 6ur2 to consider5 and it could not be said that the2 1ere not entitled to reach the $erdict 1hich the2 had.

A%/a"e

Into0ication D do not drin 1o $s$a!!y& D dr$n and i!! -i -uca (1=5=) transient effects of alcohol or dru)s in it was he!d that the transient effects of into(icants do not constitute an abnormalit2 of mind fro# one of the specified ca$ses and th$s cannot di#inish responsibi!ity. . $ Hill The $oluntar2 consum3tion of alcohol cannot be ta7en as somethin) 1hich contributes to mental abnormalit2 and conse@$ent si"nificant red$ction in responsibi!ity for a i!!in". .e)ina $ -o1ds <2;12? The appe!!ant offender (D) appea!ed a"ainst a *$d"e.s decision that vo!$ntari!y and te#porary into(ication was not capab!e of fo$ndin" the partia! defence of di#inished responsibi!ity. D was a habit$a! heavy drin er. 8e had been drin in" heavi!y when he had an ar"$#ent with his partner and i!!ed her. /oluntar2 acute into0ication 1as not ca3able of bein) relied u3on to found diminished res3onsibilit2. 8he 3resence of a reco)nised medical condition 1as a necessar25 but not al1a2s a sufficient5 condition to raise the defence . $ Hill <2;;>?& decided $nder the o!d !aw& It was he!d that as D's abnormalit2 (an or)anic brain in6ur2) 1ould not ha$e resulted in a si)nificant im3airment until it interacted 1ith alcohol he had cons$#ed& the defence 1as not a$ailable. Abnormalit2 (an or)anic brain in6ur2) 1ould not ha$e resulted in a si)nificant im3airment until it interacted 1ith alcohol he had cons$#ed& the defence 1as not a$ailable. . $ Hill <2;;>? if the mental abnormalit2 1ould5 inde3endentl2 of the drin75 have si"nificant!y red$ced #enta! responsibi!ity for the i!!in"& then the additiona! ta in" of drin7 does not ta7e a1a2 the defence of di#inished responsibi!ity (provided satisfied a!! e!e#ents) te1art <2;;=? it was he!d that whether D is s$fferin" fro# a #enta! abnor#a!ity wi!! depend on Bthe 6ur2,s findin)s about the nature and e0tent of the s2ndrome and 1hether& !oo in" at the #atter broad!y& his consum3tion of alcohol before the i!!in" is fair!y to be re"arded as the in$oluntar2 result of an irresistible cra$in) for or com3ulsion to drin7.'

D vo!$ntary drin and i!!

1o

D ar"$ed that state of into(ication is an Babnor#a!ity of #enta! f$nctionin"

1o

7hen drin in" on!y can ca$se A0-& D dr$n and i!!

1o

D had reco"ni3ed A0-& drin and i!!

Ces

D had a!coho! dependency syndro#e& cannot resist fro# drin & dr$n and i!!

Ces

D%/a"e

2nd element .52 1(b)& Coroners and Justice Act 2009

.52 1(b) ubstantiall2 im3aired D's abi!ity to do one or more of the thin"s #entioned in s$bsection (1A)& and 1A. Those thin"s are% a. to $nderstand the nat$re of D's cond$ct) b. to for# a rationa! *$d"#ent) c. to e(ercise se!f+contro!. 8o understand the nature of -,s conduct Ces E(a#p!e by 5aw A boy a"ed 1; who has been !eft to p!ay very vio!ent co##ission video "a#es for ho$rs on end for #$ch of his !ife& !oses his te#per and i!!s another chi!d when the chi!d atte#pts to ta e a "a#e fro# hi#. 7hen interviewed& he shows no rea! $nderstandin" that& when a person is i!!ed they cannot si#p!y be !ater revived& as happens in the "a#es he has been contin$a!!y p!ayin". -,s abilit2 to form a rational 6ud)ment Ces E(a#p!e by 5aw A wo#an s$fferin" fro# post+tra$#atic stress disorder& co##ission conse@$ent $pon vio!ent ab$se s$ffered at her h$sband's hands& co#es to be!ieve that on!y b$rnin" her h$sband to death wi!! rid the wor!d of his sins A #enta!!y s$b+nor#a! boy be!ieves that he #$st fo!!ow his o!der brother's instr$ctions& even when they invo!ve ta in" ta e part in a i!!in". 8e says& BI wo$!dn't drea# of disobeyin" #y brother and he wo$!d never te!! #e to do so#ethin" if it was rea!!y wron"' a depressed #an who has been carin" for #any years for a ter#ina!!y i!! spo$se& i!!s her& at her re@$est. 8e says that he had fo$nd it pro"ressive!y #ore diffic$!t to stop her repeated re@$ests do#inatin" his tho$"hts to the e(c!$sion of a!! e!se& so that BI fe!t I wo$!d never thin strai"ht a"ain $nti! I had "iven her what she wanted' Ces E(a#p!e by 5aw co##ission

Ces

E(a#p!e by 5aw co##ission

-,s abilit2 to e0ercise self&control (not limited to 4ualified tri))er) A #an says that so#eti#es the devi! ta es contro! of hi# Ces and i#p!ants in hi# a desire to i!!& a desire that #$st be acted on before the devi! wi!! "o away

E(a#p!e by 5aw co##ission

Even tho$"h the facts indicate that D's abi!ity be i#paired at the ti#e of the i!!in" b$t it #$st be proved that his abi!ity was i#paired by his #enta! abnor#a!ity. This a)ain is a 4uestion for the 6ur2 to decide on the basis of the #edica! evidence and other re!evant circ$#stances.

5%/a"e

ubstantiall2 im3aired9 F$ry decide . $ :l2od Gnder the o!d !aw the @$estion of whether an i#pair#ent 1as substantial 1as for the 6ur2 to decide in a ;broad commonsense 1a2, and not b2 the medical e03erts?). It was a!so he!d that the im3airment must be more than ;tri$ial, or ;minimal, b$t need not be Btota!' o ubstantial does not mean total& that is to say& the mental res3onsibilit2 need not be totall2 im3aired5 so to s3ea75 destro2ed alto)ether. o At the other end of the sca!e s$bstantia! does not #ean trivia! or #ini#a!. It is so#ethin" in between and /ar!ia#ent has !eft it to yo$ and other *$ries to say on the evidence: was the #enta! responsibi!ity i#paired& and& if so& was it s$bstantia!!y i#paired4 . $ :l2od "19<7# (old case) o D p!eaded di#inished responsibi!ity o The #edica! evidence was that D. was s$fferin" fro# #enta! abnor#a!ity& b$t no #edica! witness wo$!d say that his #enta! abnor#a!ity s$bstantia!!y i#paired his #enta! responsibi!ity& althou)h his mental res3onsibilit2 1as im3aired to some e0tent5 not minimal. o The 6ud)e directed the 6ur2 that it 1as for them to sa25 on the e$idence5 1hether -=s mental res3onsibilit2 1as im3aired and5 if so5 1hether it 1as substantiall2 im3aired& addin" that s$bstantia! did not #ean trivia! or #ini#a!& neither did it #ean tota!) it was so#ethin" in between. o D contendin" that Hs$bstantia!!yH in s.2(1) #eant #ore than trivia! and that as the evidence was that the i#pair#ent of #enta! responsibi!ity was #ore than trivia! the defence was #ade o$t. o 8e!d& dis#issin" the appea!& that the *$d"e.s direction had been correct. (A!tho$"h a #edica! e(pert #i"ht "ive evidence on the sy#pto#s of D's disorder and its !i e!y effects on the specified abi!ities& it wi!! be for the *$ry to decide whether there was a Bs$bstantia! i#pair#ent')

F$ry decide s$bstantia! or not even tho$"h there is #ore than #ini#a! i#pair#ent

I%/a"e

!rd element .52 1(c)& Coroners and Justice Act 2009

.52 1(c) The abnor#a!ity of #enta! f$nctionin" provides an e(p!anation for D's acts and o#issions in doin" or bein" a party to the i!!in" -or the p$rposes of s$bsection (1)(c)& an abnor#a!ity of #enta! f$nctionin" provides an e(p!anation for D.s cond$ct if it ca$ses& or is a si)nificant contributor2 factor in ca$sin"& D to carry o$t that cond$ct. ($nder ca$sation) -or the partia! defence to app!y there #$st be a connection between the abnor#a!ity and the i!!in" and it #$st be #ore than a trivia! factor. 8owever& It need not5 be the sole cause of the 7illin). (such as drun7?A'() 8his5 is a 4uestion for the 6ur2.

s. 52 (1>)

J%/a"e