lc290 Partial Defences to Murder report - Law Commission

2.11 On diminished responsibility, only one respondent was in favour of its abolition
regardless of the continuation of the mandatory life sentence. Twenty-five
favoured its abolition in the event of the abolition of the mandatory life sentence. 13
Forty-four were in favour of its retention whether or not the mandatory sentence
was abolished. 14
Response to issues not raised by us
2.12 By far the strongest message that emerged from the responses concerned
matters which we had not addressed in Consultation Paper No 173 and upon
which we had not posed any questions. Many consultees took the opportunity not
only to address the questions which we had posed, but also to express in the
clearest of terms their views on the matters which they felt lay at centre of the
problems with the current partial defences, but which did not fall within our terms
of reference.
2.13 Those matters were the pressing need for a review of the whole of the law of
murder rather than merely some of the partial defences to murder and the
question of the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for every case of
murder.
2.14 On the former, 38 consultees across the whole range of individuals and interest
groups which responded 15 expressed the view that there should be a review of
the law of murder and, in particular, the ambit of the offence. Many of them
indicated the way in which they would wish the offence to be defined. Others
indicated that, whatever may be the appropriate definition for the basic offence of
murder, the offence should be subject to grading so as to mark off the most
heinous examples of the offence for sentencing purposes. A small number of
eminent consultees criticised us for having accepted limited terms of reference
which they feared would result in an inadequate “patching” exercise.
2.15 On the latter, the response was even more compelling. Sixty-four consultees
expressed the view that, whatever may or may not be done about the partial
defences, the application of a mandatory life sentence to every case of murder
was indefensible and should cease. These views were expressed across the full
range of consultees. 16
13 13 judges, 3 individual members of the legal profession, 5 academics, 3 professional
bodies (including the Royal College of Psychiatrists) and 1 individual psychiatrist.
14 1 lay person, 16 judges, 2 individual members of the legal profession, 13 academics, 9
professional bodies within the criminal justice system, and 8 NGOs.
15 5 judges, 10 practitioners in the criminal justice system (including 1 psychiatrist and one
senior police officer), 6 professional bodies involved in the criminal justice system
(including the Rose Committee of senior judges, the CPS, the London Criminal Solicitors
Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists), 15 academics and 2 NGOs (JUSTICE
and Victim Support).
16 21 judges, 9 individual practitioners (including 2 psychiatrists), 7 professional bodies
(including the Rose Committee, the Police Federation of England and Wales, the Royal
College of Psychiatrists and the Association of Women Barristers) 20 academics, 5 NGOs
(NACRO, JUSTICE, Rights of Women, Southall Black Sisters, Refuge and Victim Support).
The only lay person to comment on these issues was in favour of abolition.
12