Diminished responsibility: elements, burden and effect (Homicide Act 1957, s.2)
Oliver Grant, who has a diagnosed severe depressive illness, kills his business partner, Simon Hale, after a dispute about the business's debts. At his trial for murder in Birmingham, two psychiatrists give evidence that his illness substantially impaired his ability to form a rational judgment and was a significant contributory factor in causing him to kill. Oliver relies on diminished responsibility.
Which of the following best describes how the defence of diminished responsibility operates in Oliver's case?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer A: The defence must prove a medically recognised abnormality of mental functioning that substantially impaired his ability to understand his conduct, judge rationally or control himself, and explains the killing; it reduces murder to manslaughter.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
Diminished responsibility requires an abnormality of mental functioning from a recognised medical condition that substantially impairs a s.2(1A) ability and explains the killing; the defence must prove it, and it reduces murder to manslaughter.
Diminished responsibility: elements, burden and effect (Homicide Act 1957, s.2)
Under s.2(1) of the Homicide Act 1957, as substituted by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, a person who kills 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 his ability to understand the nature of his conduct, form a rational judgment or exercise self-control (s.2(1A)), and (c) provides an explanation for his acts. Under s.2(1B) it provides an explanation if it causes, or is a significant contributory factor in causing, the conduct. Section 2(2) places the burden of proof on the defence; the standard is the balance of probabilities. If the defence succeeds, s.2(3) provides that he is liable to be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder. A diagnosed depressive illness is capable of being a recognised medical condition, and the expert evidence goes to each element, which the jury will decide.
Why B is wrong: That is the rule for loss of control (s.54(5) CJA 2009); for diminished responsibility s.2(2) puts the burden on the defence.
Why C is wrong: Diminished responsibility is a partial defence; it reduces murder to manslaughter rather than securing an acquittal.
Why D is wrong: Section 2(1B) requires only that the abnormality be a significant contributory factor, not the sole cause.
Why E is wrong: Diminished responsibility is a matter for the jury, assisted by medical evidence.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Loss of control: considered desire for revenge (Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s.54(4))
Which of the following best describes whether the partial defence of loss of control is available to Nadia?
Oblique intention and the virtual certainty direction (R v Woollin)
Which of the following is the correct direction the judge should have given on intention?
Transferred malice where the blow strikes an unintended victim
Which of the following best describes Ryan's liability for Leah's death?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.