Criminal: Partial Defences

Question 1

What is diminished responsibility?

Answer 1

A special defence to murder indicating that the defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning

Question 2

Is diminished responsibility available for offences other than murder?

Answer 2

No, it can only be used as a defence to murder.

Question 3

What happens if diminished responsibility is successfully proven?

Answer 3

The defendant is convicted of a lesser offence, known as voluntary manslaughter.

Question 4

What is the burden of proof for diminished responsibility?

Answer 4

The defence must prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant was acting under diminished responsibility.

Question 5

Can diminished responsibility be used as a defence to attempted murder?

Answer 5

No, it is not available for attempted murder.

Question 6

What does the Homicide Act 1957, s 2(1) state about diminished responsibility?

Answer 6

A person is not to be convicted of murder if suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition.

Question 7

What are the three criteria under Homicide Act 1957, s 2(1) for diminished responsibility?

Answer 7

• Abnormality of mental functioning arose from a recognised medical condition
• Substantially impaired ability to understand conduct, form rational judgment, or exercise self-control
• Provides an explanation for acts and omissions

Question 8

What is meant by ‘abnormality of mental functioning’?

Answer 8

A state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal.

Question 9

What must the recognised medical condition do in relation to the abnormality?

Answer 9

The abnormality must be caused by the recognised medical condition.

Question 10

Is Alcohol Dependency Syndrome (ADS) considered a recognised medical condition?

Answer 10

Yes, it is a recognised medical condition.

Question 11

What was the outcome in R v Dowds regarding voluntary intoxication?

Answer 11

The court concluded that voluntary intoxication cannot give rise to a defence of diminished responsibility.

Question 12

What does ‘substantial impairment’ mean according to R v Golds?

Answer 12

‘Substantial’ means something greater than ‘more than merely trivial’.

Question 13

What example illustrates a lack of understanding of the nature of conduct?

Answer 13

A boy who loses his temper and kills another child after playing violent video games shows no understanding of death.

Question 14

What example illustrates the inability to form a rational judgment?

Answer 14

A woman with PTSD believes burning her husband will rid the world of his sins.

Question 15

What example illustrates the inability to exercise self-control?

Answer 15

A man claims the devil takes control of him, causing a desire to kill.

Question 16

What must be established for the abnormality of mental functioning?

Answer 16

A causal link between the abnormality arising from a recognised medical condition and the killing.

Question 17

What did the court hold in R v Brennan regarding expert medical evidence?

Answer 17

A judge should withdraw the murder charge when expert medical evidence is uncontested.

Question 18

What are the four elements of diminished responsibility?

Answer 18

• Abnormality of mental functioning
• Arising from a recognised medical condition
• Substantially impairing the defendant’s ability
• Providing an explanation for D’s conduct

Question 19

What must be proven for diminished responsibility under s 2(3)?

Answer 19

The defendant must prove that they were acting under diminished responsibility.

Question 20

True or False: Diminished responsibility applies to both murder and attempted murder.

Answer 20

False

Question 21

What is the special defence that applies only in relation to murder?

Answer 21

Loss of control

This defence replaced the old law of provocation under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

Question 22

What are the three key requirements of the loss of control defence?

Answer 22

• D must have lost self-control
• Due to the fear and/or anger qualifying trigger
• A normal person might have acted in a similar way to D

Question 23

Is loss of control a complete or partial defence to murder?

Answer 23

Partial defence

Question 24

Who bears the burden of proof once the issue of loss of control is raised?

Answer 24

The prosecution

This is outlined in CJA 2009, s54(5).

Question 25

What is the consequence if the loss of control defence is successful?

Answer 25

Conviction is reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter

Question 26

What does CJA 2009, s 54(1) state regarding loss of self-control?

Answer 26

A person is not to be convicted of murder if their acts resulted from a loss of self-control

Question 27

In the context of loss of control, what does 'loss of self-control' mean?

Answer 27

The defendant's act in killing must have resulted from a loss of self-control

Question 28

What case confirmed that the defence of loss of control replaces the old law of provocation?

Answer 28

R v Clinton, Parker and Evans [2012] EWCA Crim 2

Question 29

True or False: A mere loss of temper is sufficient for the loss of control defence.

Answer 29

False

Question 30

According to CJA 2009, s 54(2), must the loss of control be sudden?

Answer 30

No

Question 31

What must be established to show a qualifying trigger under CJA 2009, s 55?

Answer 31

* Fear of serious violence * Extremely grave circumstances * Justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

Question 32

What does CJA 2009, s 55(3) state about fear as a qualifying trigger?

Answer 32

The loss of self-control must be attributable to fear of serious violence from V

Question 33

What are the limitations on the anger trigger in the loss of control defence?

Answer 33

* D cannot rely on it if D incited it as an excuse to use violence * Sexual infidelity cannot constitute grounds for this trigger

Question 34

What did Lord Steyn clarify in R v Acott regarding 'things said or done'?

Answer 34

There must be something actually said or done; circumstances alone are not enough

Question 35

What must be considered when assessing circumstances of an extremely grave nature?

Answer 35

The presence of the phrase must be determined objectively

Question 36

What does 'justifiable' mean in the context of feeling seriously wronged?

Answer 36

It must accord with contemporary society's norms and values

Question 37

What is the normal person test as per CJA 2009, s 54(1)(c)?

Answer 37

A normal person of D's sex and age might have reacted similarly

Question 38

What two steps must the jury assess in the normal person test?

Answer 38

* The gravity of the qualifying trigger * Whether a normal person might have reacted similarly

Question 39

How are characteristics or circumstances of the defendant treated in the normal person test?

Answer 39

They are excluded in assessing the normal person's reaction

Question 40

What is the test for determining the proportionality of D’s reaction?

Answer 40

A wholly-objective one.

Question 41

What are the ordinary powers of the normal person?

Answer 41

Tolerance and self-restraint.

Question 42

What characteristics or circumstances are excluded when assessing normal tolerance?

Answer 42

* Bad temper * Intoxication * Extreme sensitivity * Post-traumatic stress disorder * Personality disorder

Question 43

What are the three categories of circumstances and characteristics considered in assessing tolerance?

Answer 43

* Category one: considered under s54(1)(c) * Category two: excluded by s54(3) * Category three: considered for qualifying trigger magnitude but ignored for tolerance assessment

Question 44

In the case of Clinton, what can the jury consider regarding sexual infidelity?

Answer 44

The jury can take sexual infidelity into account if it is relevant to the overall evaluation.

Question 45

According to R v Rejmanski, how should a mental disorder be treated in relation to self-restraint?

Answer 45

It should not undermine the principle that conduct is judged against normal standards.

Question 46

What was highlighted in R v Wilcocks regarding personality disorders and loss of control?

Answer 46

A personality disorder reducing general capacity for tolerance is not relevant for loss of control.

Question 47

What must happen for D’s conviction to be reduced to voluntary manslaughter?

Answer 47

Prosecution must fail to disprove loss of control beyond reasonable doubt.

Question 48

What are the three aspects of loss of control?

Answer 48

* D lost self-control (not necessarily complete) * D acted as a result of a qualifying trigger (fear or anger) * A normal person might have reacted similarly

Question 49

What constitutes a fear trigger in loss of control?

Answer 49

Defendant fears serious violence.

Question 50

What must an anger trigger involve?

Answer 50

* Things said and/or done * Extremely grave circumstances * Justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

Question 51

What does the jury need to assess regarding the qualifying trigger?

Answer 51

* The gravity of the qualifying trigger to the defendant's circumstances * Whether a normal person might have reacted similarly

Question 52

What is the special defence of loss of control applicable to?

Answer 52

Murder ## Footnote Loss of control is a defence specifically for murder cases under the CJA 2009.

Question 53

What are the three aspects of loss of control?

Answer 53

* D lost self-control * D acted as a result of a qualifying trigger * A normal person might have done the same or a similar thing

Question 54

What does the loss of self-control imply in the context of voluntary manslaughter?

Answer 54

D must be unable to exercise self-restraint ## Footnote Referenced case: R v Richens.

Question 55

What are the two types of qualifying triggers for loss of control?

Answer 55

* Fear trigger: defendant fears serious violence * Anger trigger: things said/done that constitute circumstances of an extremely grave nature

Question 56

What must the jury assess regarding the qualifying trigger?

Answer 56

* The gravity of the qualifying trigger to the defendant's circumstances * Whether a normal person might have reacted similarly

Question 57

What limitation prohibits the use of loss of control as a defence?

Answer 57

It cannot be used in an act of 'considered desire for revenge' ## Footnote CJA 2009, s 54(4) specifies this limitation.

Question 58

Can the defence of loss of control be used as an excuse for violence?

Answer 58

No, it cannot be used as an excuse to use violence ## Footnote CJA 2009, s 55(6) addresses this limitation.

Question 59

In what situation is sexual infidelity disregarded as a qualifying trigger?

Answer 59

If the thing said/done constituted sexual infidelity ## Footnote CJA 2009, s 55(6)(c) states this.

Question 60

What did the Court of Appeal state regarding sexual infidelity as a trigger?

Answer 60

It should be disregarded only if it is the sole qualifying trigger ## Footnote Referenced case: R v Clinton, Parker and Evans.

Question 61

What is the stance on loss of control in relation to attempted murder?

Answer 61

Loss of control is not a defence to attempted murder ## Footnote Referenced case: R v Campbell.

Question 62

What are the limitations on the use of the special defence of loss of control?

Answer 62

* Considered desire for revenge * As an excuse to use violence * Sexual infidelity * Attempted murder

Question 63

Fill in the blank: Loss of control cannot be used if the defendant has a _______ for revenge.

Answer 63

considered desire

Question 64

True or False: The fear of serious violence is always a valid qualifying trigger.

Answer 64

False ## Footnote The fear must not be caused by actions incited by the defendant.

Question 65

What must be established to claim a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged?

Answer 65

The circumstances must constitute an extremely grave nature.

Question 66

What is required for the jury to determine if a loss of control is valid?

Answer 66

They must evaluate the overall context, including any sexual infidelity that is integral to the case.