Diminished responsibility work PDF

Preview

Summary

notes on diminished responsibility ...

Description

Diminished responsibility

Diminished responsibility is a defence in law where there is an unbalanced mental state which makes the defendant less questionable for murder, this can decrease the charge of manslaughter, for diminish responsibility to be successful there must be an abnormality in the mind. In our case the defendant Javid may be able to use diminished responsibility as his defence under s.52 coroners and justice act 2009 which had altered the s.2 homicide act 1957, for Javid to plead for the special defence of diminished responsibility under s.52 (1) he must have an ‘abnormality of mental functioning’. In the case of R V Byrne 1960, the defendant had murdered a young girl and cut up her body, he did this because he had a strong Impulses which he had no control over, he used the special defence of diminished responsibility saying he had no control over his desires and impulses he also stated that this was the case even when he was a boy also there was evidence which had proved the defendant was a sexual psychopath and couldn’t control what he was doing, however the courts had rejected diminished responsibility as a defence and held him accountable for murder however the court of appeal had approved of his special defence as the defendant was unable to control what he was doing due to an abnormality of the mind. Lord Parker had stated that: “abnormality of mind” means a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal. Here Javid’s condition of brain damage which was the cause of him constantly drinking which had an effect on his brain and his behaviour is so clearly different that the reasonable man would regard as abnormal. Secondly, under s.52(1)(a), the abnormality of mental functioning must have ‘arose from a recognised medical condition’ which means that this has to occur for the special defence to be approved for Javid however in the courts there was no distinct definition or parliament to what ‘abnormality of mental function’ means so the law commission stated that the medical definition would be used, in previous cases the law suggests that this would include condition such as mental deficiency this is when you have a mental deficiency this is shown in the case of R v Speak 1957 also in the case of R v Smith 1982 where the defendant had successful argued that PMT had her turned her into an animal which resulted in her acting out which was not her usual self. Also epilepsy is also a condition which would be included this affects the brain and causes seizures which affects how the brain works, in the case of R v Campbell the appellant had killed a female hitch hiker which he had picked up he had killed her because she had refused his sexual advances, she had hit him in the eye which led to him punching her in the throat this had resulted in her bleeding from her mouth, the appellant had then panicked and started strangling her and hitting her with his hockey stick, however the appellant had frontal lobe damage and epilepsy which he appealed on the grounds of diminished responsibility as he acted that way due to his medical conditions, his conviction for murder was then quashed. Also paranoia was also in included as condition in the case of R V Martin the appellant had lived alone on a farm which had frequent break-ins, there was another break in and Tony had gone downstairs and started shooting at where he thought he had heard the noise, he had shot both of the robbers, at his trial he had pleaded self-defence but this was ignored however he had appealed on the basis of personality disorder but this couldn’t be accountable for selfdefence but it would be seen as an abnormality of the mind which could have affected his mental state, his conviction was then quashed. Furthermore chronic depression was also one of the conditions in the case of R v Gittens the appellant had attacked and killed his wife with a hammer and then raped and killed his daughter, when he had killed his wife and daughter he was dealing with serious depression and had attempted to kill himself and was given prescribed medication when he visited home he had drank too much alcohol and had his medication and when his wife came back he killed her. At his trial three doctors

had spoken on behalf of the appellant stating that he had suffered from an abnormality of the mind, the doctors had said that it was due to a depressive illness and personality disorder, the murder conviction was quashed and substituted for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Furthermore battered women syndrome was also a condition in the case of R V Ahluwalia 1993 the appellant had poured petrol and caustic soda onto her sleeping husband and set fire to him he had died six days later from the injuries he had sustained, the couple had an arranged marriage and the husband was abusive and violent throughout their marriage, and he was having an affair, the day she had set him on fire he had threatened to beat her with an iron and told her he would do the same the next day if she didn’t give him money, she had admitted to killing him at her trial , she was charged with murder but had appealed on the grounds of diminished responsibility and that she was pressured into doing so, the appeal was allowed on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Here, the condition Javid is suffering from is depression, this is common as his constant abuse of alcohol which has many effects of the body such as brain damage, brain damage can link to a person getting severe depression and it is common in heavy drinkers, depression can occur after a long period of time as it takes time to have full on effect on the brain this can make a person have deep thoughts which they can then fall into depression, in this case Javid had been suffering from depression without knowing due to being an alcoholic in the past, and this is resulted in him setting fire to the kitchen. Javid will need to provide medical evidence to support this claim and then only will it be classed as an ‘abnormality of the mind’. However it is for the jury to be satisfied that Javid abnormality arose from a medical condition, only then will diminished responsibility be successful.

Thirdly under s.52 (1) (b), the abnormality of mental functioning must have substantially impaired Javid’s ability to do one or more of the three things: the ability to understand the nature of his conduct so for example: sleep walking, delusions and form a logical judgment so depression, paranoia etc. and exercise self-control which is portrayed in the case of R V Byrne where the appellant had murdered a young girl and mutilated her bod, he did this because he was suffering from impulses which he couldn’t stop as he had no self-control so therefore he couldn’t stop the actions taking place. Here, Javid’s ability to understand the nature of his conduct was impaired as Javid may have had depression and had been paranoid due to the fact his girlfriend was in contact with her ex and was paranoid. Previous case law suggests that ‘substantial’ means more than trivial but less than total impairment, in the case of R v Lloyd, Lloyd had worked as a chief projectionist at a cinema, after some time working he had starting taking films from his place of work and gave them to someone who had copied them and Lloyd had put the films back they were all convicted for stealing but they had appealed saying that their intention wasn’t to permanently deprive could not arise in their circumstances so it couldn’t have gone to the jury, the appeal was successful and their convictions were dropped. Here, it can be argued that Javid’s impairment is substantial because it is so significant, even though his impairment may not necessarily be total. Lastly under s.52 (1) (c), the abnormality of mental functioning must provide an explanation for Javid’s acts or omissions. This is a question of causation so there needs to a question whether it was foreseeable. Causation refers to the enquiry as to whether the defendants conduct caused the harm

or damage, it is spilt into two categories: factual causation and legal causation, factual causation is demonstrated by using the ‘but for test’ which is questioning but for the actions of the defendant would the results still have occurred, the legal causation requires that the harm must result from the guilty act. Also the abnormality does not need to be the only factor, but it must be a significant factor, this is shown in the case of R v Cheshire where Cheshire had shot a man while arguing, the victim was taken to hospital to have surgery but shortly after had respiratory issues, the doctors inserted a tracheotomy tube in him which remained in place for four weeks improved his condition, but days later he started complaining about the same issues, and days later he died, his post-mortem results showed that his windpipe had narrowed where the pipe had been place, later on Cheshire had been charged with murder, but the decision was appealed as the question was what had caused the victims death, the fact that he was shot or the fact of negligent medical treatment which he received when at the hospital, the judge had said to the jury that Cheshire acts may not be the reason for the cause of the victims death. The appeal was not successful as Cheshire acts had contributed to his injuries which was a significant factor. Here, Javid abnormality is clearly the significant factor because he had lost control over his actions and was only trying to scare Paul away not harm him, but instead he had lit fire to the kitchen which was the main factor to why Paul had died as he caught on fire and then died from the injuries he had sustained. In conclusion, it is likely that Javid will be successful with the diminished responsibility defence as his brain has been affected due to his constant drinking of alcohol which has caused him to have no control over what he does....