Voluntary Manslaughter and Diminished Responsibility in Criminal Law
undefined
LAW03: Criminal Law (Offences
against the Person).
There are 3 special defences* that apply only to
murder and will, if successful, reduce the charge of
murder to
voluntary
manslaughter
.
Instead of the D receiving a mandatory life sentence
the judge has discretion as to what sentence should
be imposed (anything up to life).
*for the purposes of the examination only
diminished responsibility
and
loss of control
need
to be studied.
Diminished
responsibility was introduced by
the Homicide Act 1957 and did not exist in
English law until that time.
The defence is set out in
s. 2(1) Homicide Act
1957
as amended by
s. 52 Coroners and
Justice Act 2009
.
"A
person who kills or is party to a killing of another is not to be
convicted of murder if he was suffering from an abnormality of mental
functioning which:
a)
Arose from a recognised medical condition;
b)
Substantially impaired D's ability to:
•
Understand the nature of his conduct; or
•
Form a rational judgement; or
•
Exercise self-control; and
c)
Provides an explanation for D's acts and omissions in doing or being
party to the killing."
What
is an
abnormality of mental
functioning
?
It is likely that the courts will use the old
definition of "abnormality of mind" in
Byrne
(1960)
to define this.
The courts defined abnormality as:
" … a state
of mind so different
from that of ordinary human
beings that the reasonable man
would term it abnormal."
D
was a sexual psychopath who
strangled a woman and
mutilated her body. Medical
evidence stated that because of
his condition he was unable to
control his perverted desires.
The D's conviction for murder
was quashed and a conviction
for manslaughter was
substituted instead.
The
cause of the abnormality of mental functioning must be a
recognised medical
condition
.
There must be medical evidence given at the trial to prove this.
The term
recognised medical condition
is wide enough to cover both psychological and
physical conditions such as:
•
Mental deficiency –
Speake (1957)
;
•
Pre-menstrual tension –
Smith (1982)
;
•
Chronic depression –
Gittens (1984)
;
•
Battered women's syndrome –
Ahluwalia (1993)
;
•
Bipolar disorder, paranoid depression, schizophrenia etc;
•
Physical conditions such as epilepsy, sleep disorders or diabetes.
The abnormality of mental functioning must
substantially
impair
the D's mental responsibility for his acts or
omissions.
Byrne
states that the
question of whether impairment
was substantial or not is one of degree and for the jury to
decide.
Lloyd (1967)
stated that 'substantial' does not mean
'total' or 'trivial' but means something in between.
The D's ability to do one of 3 things must be substantially impaired …
•
To
understand the nature of his conduct; or
•
To form a rational judgement; or
•
To exercise self-control..
These 3 points were originally decided in
Byrne
and then incorporated
into the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
This will be where the D is in an automatic state and therefore does not know what
he is doing.
It also covers situations where the D is suffering from
delusions
and believes, for
example, that he is killing the devil when he is actually killing a person.
It would also cover situations where the D has severe learning difficulties and their
mental age is so low that they would not understand what they were doing.
Even if the D
does know the nature of his conduct he may
not be able to form a rational judgement about his acts or
omissions.
Ds that suffer from paranoia, schizophrenia or battered
women's syndrome, for example, may not be able to
make a rational judgement about their behaviour.
This was the situation in
Byrne
.
The
D was a sexual psychopath and the medical
evidence was that his condition meant he was unable
to control his perverted desires. This is why he was
allowed a defence of diminished responsibility.
The D must prove that the abnormality of mental functioning
provides an explanation
for his acts or omissions.
There must be a
causal
link between the abnormality and the killing.
Did the abnormality of mental functioning
cause
the killing?
s. 1B of the Homicide Act 1957 states:
"… an abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for D's conduct if it
causes or is a significant contributory factor in causing, D to carry out that conduct."
The defence of diminished responsibility
becomes more complicated if the D is
also intoxicated at the time of the killing.
The first point to note is that intoxication
on its own
cannot support a defence of
diminished responsibility.
The D's
conviction for
murder was upheld on the
basis that voluntary acute
intoxication is not capable of
founding the defence of
diminished responsibility.
The D and his girlfriend,
V,
were binge drinkers and D,
in a drunken state, stabbed
V 60 times and killed her.
D was convicted of murder
but appealed on the grounds
that his 'acute intoxication'
should have been submitted
to the jury as a possible
defence of diminished
responsibility.
There can be difficulties when the D
has some abnormality of mental
functioning but is also intoxicated at
the time he does the killing.
D was convicted of murder and
appealed. The HL
allowed the
appeal and voluntary manslaughter,
based on diminished responsibility,
was substituted.
As long as D satisfied the criteria of
diminished responsibility the affect
of the intoxication is ignored.
D was upset as he believed the V
was acting disrespectfully
towards the D's recently deceased
aunt. D killed V.
Psychiatrists agreed that D was
suffering from an adjustment
order in the form of 'depressed
grief reaction'.
They
disagreed on whether this
had substantially impaired his
mental responsibility as he was
also intoxicated at the time of the
killing.
So, the jury need to decide:
1.
If the D had an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised
medical condition;
2.
Whether the abnormality substantially impaired D's ability to
understand the
nature of his conduct, form a rational judgement or exercise self-control;
3.
Whether the abnormality was a significant factor in causing D to kill V.
There is a recognised medical condition
called
Alcohol Dependency
Syndrome
(ADS) which means that a person has no control over
their drinking.
Under the old law, in the case of
Tandy
(1989)
, the CA held that
where the D is unable to resist drinking (it is involuntary) a defence
of diminished responsibility could be available.
This decision was criticised for not considering whether alcoholism
is a disease or not.
The judge directed the jury
that if they
found the D had suffered brain damage
as a result of ADS then diminished
responsibility was available …
…
but
, if they didn't think the ADS had
caused brain damage then diminished
responsibility would not be available.
D, after drinking heavily,
went to the V's flat. D claimed
he had fallen asleep when he
awoken by the V trying to
perform oral sex on him. D
repeatedly hit V with a meat
cleaver and killed him.
Medical experts agreed that
the D was suffering from ADS
but disagreed as to whether it
had damaged D's brain or not.
The CA set out a 3 stage test for juries to consider in these
circumstances:
1.
Was the D suffering an
abnormality
?
Just having ADS would not be enough to satisfy the
defence. The nature and extent of the ADS would
have to be considered.
2.
If so, was D's abnormality caused by ADS (a
recognised
medical condition
)?
3.
If so, was D's mental responsibility substantially impaired?
The basic criteria of diminished responsibility are applied
with the ADS simply being the recognised medical condition
that caused the abnormality of mental functioning
.
Voluntary manslaughter is a legal concept where certain special defenses can reduce a murder charge to manslaughter, giving judges discretion in sentencing. Diminished responsibility, introduced by the Homicide Act, allows individuals suffering from abnormal mental functioning during a killing to have their murder charge reduced. The definition of abnormality of mental functioning is crucial in determining this defense. Courts, through cases like Byrne (1960), have established criteria to assess abnormality. Understanding these legal concepts is essential in the context of criminal law.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER. LAW03: Criminal Law (Offences against the Person).
There are 3 special defences* that apply only to murder and will, if successful, reduce the charge of murder to voluntary manslaughter. Instead of the D receiving a mandatory life sentence the judge has discretion as to what sentence should be imposed (anything up to life). *for the purposes of the examination only diminished responsibility and loss of control need to be studied.
DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY.
Diminished responsibility was introduced by the Homicide Act 1957 and did not exist in English law until that time. The defence is set out in s. 2(1) Homicide Act 1957 as amended by s. 52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
"A person who kills or is party to a killing of another is not to be convicted of murder if he was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which: a) Arose from a recognised medical condition; b) Substantially impaired D's ability to: Understand the nature of his conduct; or Form a rational judgement; or Exercise self-control; and c) Provides an explanation for D's acts and omissions in doing or being party to the killing."
ABNORMALITY OF MENTAL FUNCTIONING. What is an abnormality of mental functioning? It is likely that the courts will use the old definition of "abnormality of mind" in Byrne (1960) to define this.
The courts defined abnormality as: BYRNE (1960) " a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal." D was a sexual psychopath who strangled a mutilated her body. Medical evidence stated that because of his condition he was unable to control his perverted desires. woman and The D's conviction for murder was quashed and a conviction for manslaughter substituted instead. was
CAUSE OF THE ABNORMALITY OF MENTAL FUNCTIONING. The cause of the abnormality of mental functioning must be a recognised medical condition. There must be medical evidence given at the trial to prove this. The term recognised medical condition is wide enough to cover both psychological and physical conditions such as: Mental deficiency Speake (1957); Pre-menstrual tension Smith (1982); Chronic depression Gittens (1984); Battered women's syndrome Ahluwalia (1993); Bipolar disorder, paranoid depression, schizophrenia etc; Physical conditions such as epilepsy, sleep disorders or diabetes.
SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIRED. The abnormality of mental functioning must substantially impair the D's mental responsibility for his acts or omissions. Byrne states that the question of whether impairment was substantial or not is one of degree and for the jury to decide. Lloyd (1967) stated that 'substantial' does not mean 'total' or 'trivial' but means something in between.
WHAT MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIRED? The D's ability to do one of 3 things must be substantially impaired To understand the nature of his conduct; or To form a rational judgement; or To exercise self-control.. These 3 points were originally decided in Byrne and then incorporated into the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
TO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF HIS CONDUCT. This will be where the D is in an automatic state and therefore does not know what he is doing. It also covers situations where the D is suffering from delusions and believes, for example, that he is killing the devil when he is actually killing a person. It would also cover situations where the D has severe learning difficulties and their mental age is so low that they would not understand what they were doing.
TO FORM A RATIONAL JUDGEMENT. Even if the D does know the nature of his conduct he may not be able to form a rational judgement about his acts or omissions. Ds that suffer from paranoia, schizophrenia or battered women's syndrome, for example, may not be able to make a rational judgement about their behaviour.
TO EXERCISE SELF-CONTROL. This was the situation in Byrne. The D was a sexual psychopath and the medical evidence was that his condition meant he was unable to control his perverted desires. This is why he was allowed a defence of diminished responsibility.
PROVIDES AN EXPLANATION FOR D'S CONDUCT. The D must prove that the abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for his acts or omissions. There must be a causal link between the abnormality and the killing. Did the abnormality of mental functioning cause the killing? s. 1B of the Homicide Act 1957 states: " an abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for D's conduct if it causes or is a significant contributory factor in causing, D to carry out that conduct."
DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY AND INTOXICATION.
The defence of diminished responsibility becomes more complicated if the D is also intoxicated at the time of the killing. The first point to note is that intoxication on its own cannot support a defence of diminished responsibility.
DOWDS (2012) The D and his girlfriend, V, were binge drinkers and D, in a drunken state, stabbed V 60 times and killed her. The D's conviction for murder was upheld on the basis that voluntary acute intoxication is not capable of founding the defence of diminished responsibility. D was convicted of murder but appealed on the grounds that his 'acute intoxication' should have been submitted to the jury as a possible defence of responsibility. diminished
INTOXICATION AND A PRE-EXISTING ABNORMALITY OF MENTAL FUNCTIONING. There can be difficulties when the D has some abnormality of mental functioning but is also intoxicated at the time he does the killing.
D was convicted of murder and appealed. The HL allowed the appeal and voluntary manslaughter, based on diminished responsibility, was substituted. DIETSCHMANN (2003) D was upset as he believed the V was acting towards the D's recently deceased aunt.D killedV. disrespectfully Psychiatrists agreed that D was suffering from order in the form of 'depressed grief reaction'. an adjustment As long as D satisfied the criteria of diminished responsibility the affect of the intoxication is ignored. They disagreed on whether this had substantially impaired his mental responsibility as he was also intoxicated at the time of the killing.
So, the jury need to decide: If the D had an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition; 1. Whether the abnormality substantially impaired D's ability to understand the nature of his conduct, form a rational judgement or exercise self-control; 2. Whether the abnormality was a significant factor in causing D to kill V. 3.
INTOXICATION DUE TO ADDICTION/DEPENDENCY. There is a recognised medical condition called Alcohol Dependency Syndrome (ADS) which means that a person has no control over their drinking. Under the old law, in the case of Tandy (1989), the CA held that where the D is unable to resist drinking (it is involuntary) a defence of diminished responsibility could be available. This decision was criticised for not considering whether alcoholism is a disease or not.
The judge directed the jury that if they found the D had suffered brain damage as a result of ADS then diminished responsibility was available WOOD (2008) after drinking went to the V's flat. D claimed he had fallen asleep when he awoken by the V trying to perform oral sex on him. D repeatedly hit V with a meat cleaver and killed him. D, heavily, but, if they didn't think the ADS had caused brain damage then diminished responsibility would not be available. Medical experts agreed that the D was suffering from ADS but disagreed as to whether it had damaged D's brain or not.
The CA set out a 3 stage test for juries to consider in these circumstances: STEWART (2009) Was the D suffering an abnormality? Just having ADS would not be enough to satisfy the defence. The nature and extent of the ADS would have to be considered. 1. If so, was D's abnormality caused by ADS (a recognised medical condition)? 2. If so, was D's mental responsibility substantially impaired? 3. The basic criteria of diminished responsibility are applied with the ADS simply being the recognised medical condition that caused the abnormality of mental functioning.
