15.08.2013 Views

lc290 Partial Defences to Murder report - Law Commission

lc290 Partial Defences to Murder report - Law Commission

lc290 Partial Defences to Murder report - Law Commission

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

5.67 The second was:<br />

Mitigation by reduced capacity: Where a person kills or is a party <strong>to</strong><br />

the killing of another, he shall be convicted of manslaughter and not<br />

murder if at the time of the commission of the offence he was in an<br />

abnormal state of mind which substantially impaired his ability <strong>to</strong><br />

appreciate the wrongness of his conduct, or his ability <strong>to</strong> act in<br />

accordance with his recognition that his actions were wrong.<br />

A person who would otherwise be guilty of murder is not guilty of<br />

murder but is guilty of manslaughter if at the time of the act or<br />

omission causing death:<br />

(1) that person’s capacity <strong>to</strong>:<br />

(i) understand events; or<br />

(ii) judge whether that person’s actions were right or wrong; or<br />

(iii) control himself;<br />

(2) was substantially affected by a form of mental disorder as<br />

defined in section 1 of the Mental Health Act 1983, which shall not<br />

include any temporary alteration of mental state caused by drugs of<br />

any kind; and<br />

(3) the mental disorder was a substantial cause of the act or omission<br />

causing death; and<br />

(4) in the opinion of the jury, the mental disorder was an extenuating<br />

circumstance, which ought <strong>to</strong> reduce the offence <strong>to</strong> manslaughter.<br />

5.68 These versions have in common that they identify the link explaining why the<br />

defendant’s culpability should be regarded as reduced by his or her mental<br />

abnormality.<br />

5.69 The second version has three ingredients which are not in the first version. One<br />

ingredient is that “the mental disorder was an extenuating circumstance, which<br />

ought <strong>to</strong> reduce the offence <strong>to</strong> manslaughter”. For the reasons that we have<br />

already given, we are not attracted <strong>to</strong> that form of test. 77<br />

5.70 Another difference is the stipulation that “the mental disorder was a substantial<br />

cause of the act or omission causing death”, but we think that this difference may<br />

be more apparent than real because we think that a causative link may be<br />

regarded as implicit in the first version.<br />

5.71 The most significant difference between the two versions is in the definition of<br />

mental abnormality or disorder. The first version refers simply <strong>to</strong> an abnormal<br />

state of mind; the second refers <strong>to</strong> a mental disorder as defined in section 1 of<br />

77 See paras 5.54 – 5.56 above.<br />

100

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!