The Defence of Diminished Responsibility
In the early hours of 13th June 2023, Valdo Calocane (also known as Adam Mendes) stabbed three people to death in Nottingham. Calocane denied the murder of Barnably Webber, Grace O’Malley-Kumar, and Ian Coates, but he did admit to three counts of manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility. It is believed that he was suffering from acute paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the attack. In late January, Calocane was sentenced to a hospital order and is expected to be detained indefinitely in a high-security facility. The sentence has been viewed by the families of the victims as far too lenient, given the severity of the crimes committed. But what exactly is the defence of diminished responsibility, and when can it be used?
What does diminished responsibility mean?
The legal defence of diminished responsibility was introduced through the Homicide Act 1957, which amended the law on murder. Before this Act, the mandatory death penalty for murder in England and Wales left little room for the consideration of mental health factors. The Homicide Act created a new offence of manslaughter because of diminished responsibility, offering a more nuanced approach to cases where mental impairment played a significant role.
How is diminished responsibility proven?
Certain criteria must be met to use the defence of diminished responsibility successfully in a court of law. The defendant must demonstrate that, at the time of the offence, they suffered from abnormal mental functioning, and this substantially impaired their ability to understand the nature of their conduct, form a rational judgment, or exercise self-control.
The first criteria, that of abnormal mental functioning, refers to a state of mind that deviates from the norm. This may include recognised mental disorders such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or severe depression. In such cases, the court assesses whether the defendant’s mental functioning was impaired to a significant degree, going beyond mere stress or emotional turmoil.
The second and third criteria to prove diminished responsibility focus on the extent of impairment. The defendant must establish that their abnormal mental functioning substantially impaired their ability to understand the nature of their conduct, form a rational judgment, or exercise self-control. This reflects a balance between recognising mental health challenges and ensuring that the impairment is substantial enough to justify a reduction in criminal responsibility.
The defence of diminished responsibility is often used in cases of homicide, where the accused is charged with murder but seeks a conviction for manslaughter. The court plays a crucial role in evaluating psychiatric evidence and determining whether the defendant meets the criteria for diminished responsibility.
Central to the defence in such cases is expert psychiatric evidence. Forensic psychiatrists and psychologists are often called upon to assess the defendant’s mental state at the time of the offence. Their expert witness report and testimony help the court to understand the extent of the defendant’s mental impairment and its impact on their guilt.
Diminished responsibility caselaw
Several landmark cases have shaped how the defence of diminished responsibility in England and Wales can be applied. In the case of R v Byrne (1960), for example, it was established that abnormality of mental functioning does not need to mean a total mental impairment, emphasising the significance of the degree of impairment. More recent cases, such as R v Dietschmann (2003), clarified the relevance of the defendant’s voluntary intoxication in assessing diminished responsibility. In this case, a man killed his friend while drunk and when suffering from depression following the death of a close family member. The jury was asked by the judge to consider whether the defendant would have killed his friend if he had not been drunk and whether he was under diminished responsibility. A murder conviction against Dietschmann was quashed and replaced by a conviction for manslaughter.
Criticisms of the defence of diminished responsibility
While the defence of diminished responsibility has been a valuable legal tool, it is not without its controversies. Critics argue that the criteria used for diminished responsibility are overly subjective and open to interpretation, potentially leading to inconsistent application across cases. There are also concerns about the potential abuse of the defence, with defendants exaggerating or feigning mental health issues to mitigate their culpability.
Diminished responsibility cases often attract public attention and may also contribute to the stigmatisation of mental health issues. Public perception may sway towards scepticism, questioning the legitimacy of using mental health as a defence. This highlights the need for balanced public discourse and education to dispel misconceptions surrounding mental health and criminal responsibility.
In recent years, there have been calls for reforms to the defence of diminished responsibility to address some perceived shortcomings. Proposals include refining the criteria, providing more precise guidelines for judges and juries, and promoting consistency in its application.
Final words
The defence of diminished responsibility in England and Wales is an important legal mechanism in cases where mental health plays a significant role in criminal conduct. While subject to debates and criticisms, its role in the criminal justice system underscores the evolving understanding of mental health and its intersection with legal responsibility. As society grapples with these complexities, ongoing discussions and potential reforms may shape the future application of the defence of diminished responsibility.
Our full-service Coventry Law Firm can advise you on both personal and business legal matters. Please call us on 02476 231000 or email enquiries@askewslegal.co
Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice. Please consult with a qualified family law solicitor for guidance specific to your situation.
