When can diminished responsibility be used as a partial defence to a charge of murder?

Question

In what circumstances?

Can i please have a detailed answer

Answer 1

s.2 of the Homicide Act 1957 states:

(1) Where a person kills or is a party to the killing of another, he shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.
(2) On a charge of murder, it shall be for the defence to prove that the person charged is by virtue of this section not liable to be convicted of murder.

In the leading case of R v Byrne [1960] it was ruled that the term 'Abormality of mind' means 'a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal.' It is wide enough to cover 'the mind's activities in all its aspects, not only the perception of physical acts and matters, and the ability to form a rational judgment as to whether an act is right or wrong [as in the case of insanity, which is a complete defence to murder], but also the ability to exercise will power to control physical acts in accordance with that rational judgment. (R v Byrne [1960]). The expression "mental responsibility for his acts" is construed accordingly.
Note that the defence has to produce evidence to support this plea - i.e. medical evidence. Obviously there is room for differences of opinion as to what constitutes such an 'abnormality of mind', and the likely effect of this on the accused powers of self-control. The definition has widened considerably in recent years: for example, the state of mind of women who kill partners after suffering many years of domestic abuse has been recognised as a distinct syndrome in its own right (called BWS or Battered Women Syndrome - (R v Thornton)); as have the extreme states of hysterical disassociation in which partner-carers sometimes commt so-called 'mercy killings.' It's a very grey area of law.

N.B. s.3 of the Homicide Act permits the charge to be reduced to manslaughter also where there is evidence that the accused was provoked; AND (crucially) that the jury might think the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as he did.

The advantage of using this section (instead of s.2) is that the defence don't have to prove anything: it's for the prosecution to rebut the possibility beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, it is (in theory) only helpful to the 'reasonable man' - not one suffering from any certifiable mental illness which might have made him more likely to lose his self-control (R v Holley [2005]). In reality the two defences are often argued together (e.g. in battered women cases), so no-one actually knows which the jury was 'using' at the time.

Oh, and the law in this area may well be about to be changed in accordance with last years Law Commission recommendations; briefly, this would mean cases of manslaughter on grounds of dimin. responsibility or provocation being reclassified as '2nd degree murder'. In addition the definition of 'mental abnormality' in s.2 would be loosened in line with current practice; the s.3 defence expanded to include cases where someone violently overreacts out of fear of a perceived threat to his or another's life and limb.

There is a lot lot more of course - but I hope at least some of this is vaguely useful to you!

Answer 2

The house of lords recently ruled on this (see case of Regina v. Smith - appeal hearing)

Diminished responsibilty can only be used as a partial defence when 'individual can prove . . . that they were not responsible for their actions'

This generally covers people with a medical problem.

But a recent case when 2 men were fighting another man. One of the attackers tried to get it out of the others hand, and the other pulled away stabbing the 3rd man.

He claimed diminished responsibilty, as he had intended to attack and wound the man they were attacking but not kill him.

Hope this helps

Answer 3

If you feel that you are seriously threatened (by the person that you've topped) and can prove that your life was somehow at stake.. or if this thing has been going on for years.... such as if you are a Battered Spouse...

or provoked to such an extent that 'rage' anger or fear take over (especially if you have some prior with anger management - best to set that one up in advance)

If the use of psychotropic drugs has messed with your head...

or if you were out of your mind with grief (say at the death of a child or parent)

or if you were in some way mentally incapacitated - you are nuts in some way - say schizophrenic or suffering form multiple personality disorder.

With a note from your psychiatrist, of course... just one from your mum saying 'Debbie has been unwell, sorry about the mess and the body-count' won't quite cut it - even, one suspects, in the US.

Unless you are a famous football or basketball star.

Answer 4

If you intend to learn to end almost any violence the you will have to have the program of Bruce Perry, Patriot Self Defense , an application that you just will find it here https://tr.im/BcpwI
Patriot Self Defense may teach you a very efficient self-defense system that's been field-tested in domiciles, at government functions and on a number of the meanest roads in the world against the most callous, shrewd and harmful criminal.
With Patriot Self Defense you will discover out that is much easier you then expected to guard your self since you do not need to be a specialist or have energy, you only have to learn how to do particular techniques, easy actions but deathly.

Answer 5

self defence, mental illness, under the influence of drugs/alcohol, euthanasia are a few

Answer 6

When a doctor says your nuts and didnt know what you were doing...What have you done?

Answer 7

When you are medically declared to not be of sound mind.

Answer 8

as still as u feel weak