LAW 1025

18/02/2020

Defence
Substantial Impairment
R v Golds -

R v Squelch – Court of Appeals case where the court agreed the defendant had a
personality disorder where a medical expert was called forward. Three experts agreed that
there was paranoid personality disorder, but disagreed as to whether it resulted in
‘substantial impairment’ or not, and it was left up to the jury to weigh whether or not the
condition ‘substantially impaired’ the defendant.

 Must only be substantially impaired – not removed altogether

 If defendant is unable to form the necessary intent then the offence of murder has not
been made out and no need to rely on diminished responsibility
 Relationship w/ defence of insanity
 Defendant’s ability to tell right from wrong is impaired
 Causation – must show that the med condition that caused the abnormality of mental
functioning caused the effect. See this in legislation – subsection (1)(c). Must be
significant contributory factor (e.g. person having voices in their head which makes it
difficult to exert control, but on occasion on which they kill out of jealousy or
financial is the reason for their actions. Must consider if voices are the reason they
killed, or they killed for financial gain – see Khan, where jury must determine causal
link between med condition and murder)

Diminished Responsibility and Loss of Control

- Both reduce a murder charge to manslaughter
- Battered Woman Syndrome – Ahluwalia, domestic violence case. Battered
Woman Syndrome (BWS) – women who killed their spouses, rather than plead to
manslaughter, would’ve pled to DR or Loss of Control b/c of BWS due to suffering
 abuse as the hands of her husband. Brings up questions in terms of genders in society
and how this feeds through the criminal justice system.
o Under this, it’s possible for a woman to plead loss of control or diminished
responsibility
o Because of different types of evidence that would be presented during a
murder trial, it would be the case that going down a diminished responsibility
route would bring in medical experts, whereas loss of control would have
defence arguing that defendant endured years of abuse at husband’s hands
and it made sense that she snapped.
- DR need to show abnormality of mental functioning, LoC no need to show problems
in mental functioning (wouldn’t have medical evidence – wouldn’t be relevant) and
need to show a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint
- DR need to lead medical evidence that it was caused by recognised medical condition,
LoC no requirement to lead medical evidence

Diminished Responsibility & Intoxication

When someone kills and there’s evidence of a medical condition and there’s also evidence of
alcohol/drugs, can they still plead diminished responsibility?

R v Joyce and Kay

Court held that just because someone is intoxicated, doesn’t mean they can’t rely on DR, but
it complicates the case, so they must look at how the drugs/alcohol interacted with the pre-
existing medical condition. If it’s the case that the D wouldn’t have killed had it not been for
the fact that they were intoxicated (i.e. the med condition didn’t provide substantial
impairment) they cannot rely on a DR defence.

R v O’Connell

Must be a recognised med condition, otherwise you cannot rely on DR. Transient effect of
alcohol/drugs would not suffice.

R v Wood & R v Stewart

Alcoholism – a recognised medical condition. If a recognised alcoholic becomes so drunk
that they kill, the idea that drinking isn’t voluntary in this case means defendant can rely on
DR.

R v Dowds

Acute voluntary intoxication – binge-drinking. Also recognised as a medical condition, so

can apply for DR. Court is reluctant to go down the DR route in this case, and state that not
all med conditions will suffice for a DR.

R v Dietschmann

An abnormality not related to alcoholism can be successfully plead even if defendant had
been drinking (e.g. schizophrenia).

Diminished Responsibility Overview: