Learning Outcomes Explain cases that illustrate circumstances that

Learning Outcomes �Explain cases that illustrate circumstances that can amount to provocation �Explain the relationship of diminished responsibility as partial defence to murder �Explain cases that illustrate circumstances that amount to abnormality of mind, causes of abnormality of mind & apply rules to given situations �Evaluate proposals for reform of voluntary manslaughter

MATCH THE CASES Recap from previous lesson: PROVOCATION ACTIVITY �In groups match the cases with the explanations

Feedback � Describe what happened in each of these cases

Reflection �Can we now explain cases that illustrate circumstances that can amount to provocation?

Voluntary Manslaughter – Diminished Responsibility �Voluntary Manslaughter is where the charge is murder but a defence applies which reduces it to manslaughter �The two special defences are: �Diminished Responsibility �Provocation- LOSS OF CONTROL

Overview �The defences ONLY apply to murder �They reduce it to manslaughter �This means the sentence is at the judge’s discretion �Circumstances can be taken into account – they are found in the Homicide Act 1957

What does the Homicide Act 1957 say? �The Homicide Act 1957 s 2(1) provides a defence where D: �. . . “Was suffering from such Abnormality of mental functioning(whether arising from a Recognised medical condition as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing”

In pairs �Read the definition in the Homicide Act and make bullet points of this means �Share ideas with pair beside you �Think of the what an Abnormality of mental functioning (whether might mean and list examples of injuries, diseases etc

In a nutshell An Abnormality of mental functioning Which substantially impairs D’s responsibility 1. To understand the nature of his conduct 2. Form a rational judgement 3. Exercise self control DR Caused by a recognised medical condition

One Additional Requirement �The abnormality of mental functioning must require an explanation for the defendant’s involvement in the killing �This will be the case where the abnormality was at least a significant contributory factor in causing the defendant to carry out the conduct

Abnormality of mental functioning �Abnormality of mental functioning covers many different kinds of medical conditions such as: � psychotic disorders �Clinical Depression �Epilepsy

Case Examples – Reynolds (1988) Killed her mother Could cause DR Young mother Post – natal depression With a hammer

English (1981) Could bring evidence To admit defence of DR A woman who killed By pre – menstrual tension To show that responsibility had been impaired

Byrne (1960) Byrne inability to control his perverted desires could plead DR On appeal manslaughter Strangled a young woman D sexual psychopath Found guilty of murder Mutilated her body

Causes of abnormality of mental functioning �A recognised medical condition could include low mental age �Any inherent cause – means internal eg depression �Disease eg post traumatic stress �Induced by injury eg head injury – Luc Thiet Thuan �Whatever cause of DR – MEDICAL EVIDENCE needed to support defence

Substantial Impairment �The extent to which the defendant’s abnormality of mental functioning ‘ substantially impairs’ his responsibility is up to the jury to decide. �In Gittens (1984) the jury said the impairment must be substantial

Intoxication �Abnormality caused by drink or drugs would not usually be accepted �There may be an exception if the abnormality is caused by the disease of alcoholism �But NOT the voluntary taking of alcohol

Intoxication Case example – Tandy (1989) C of A – drunkenness not an abnormality of mental functioning – only if brain had been injured from by alcoholism DR would suceed D strangled 11 yr old daughter murder Court of Appeal dismissed appeal D claimed alcoholism - disease Drinking involuntary

Tandy case Unfortunately Tandy case did not settle question as to whether alcoholism could be a ‘disease’ in meaning

Problem ? ? When D as well as suffering from abnormality of mental functioning also under influence of drugs or alcohol at time of killing… Should a jury separate out intoxication & consider only the abnormality of mind in isolation? ?

Gittens (1984) �D killed wife & daughter – suffering depression & consumed drink & drugs �Jury invited to decide if intoxication or depression main cause of mental state �Convicted + MURDER �CA said jury should DISREGARD alcohol & drugs & consider if it was depression �Misdirection led to verdict of manslaughter being substituted for murder

Decision approved – Dietschmann (2003) �D suffered from ‘adjustment disorder’ – killed man who was disrespectful to memory of D’s lately deceased aunt �Time of killing – D consumed large amount of alcohol �H of L approved decision in Gittens �Lord Hutton said – important question for jury is whether mental abnormality disregarding intoxication, substantially impaired his responsibility for his actions

ACTIVITY �In groups �Answer Problem scenarios 1 -3 �Consider whether the defence of DR might be successful in each situation

Match the cases to explanation � DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY

Can we now…. ? ? �Explain the relationship of diminished responsibility as partial defence to murder �Explain cases that illustrate circumstances that amount to abnormality of mind, causes of abnormality of mind & apply rules to given situations

Research Activity �Each group will have to design an A 3 poster to be displayed in the classroom �The poster will include evaluation and proposed reform of the law of provocation and Diminished Responsibility

PROCESS – step 1 Roles – All members undertake research � 2 members make presentation �The remaining members share the design of poster between them

PROCESS – Step 2 �All members should use newspaper articles : �More male partners will be convicted pf murder after law reform – the times online business section �Push to End ‘Crimes of Passion’ Sky News Website �Plans to reform laws unveiled – Guardian Website �Web extracts: �Ministry of Justice �The Law Commission

Feedback

Write down 3 things you have learnt today WRITE DOWN ANYTHING YOU ARE UNSURE OF – WE WILL REVISIT NEXT LESSON