Homicide - Diminished Responsibility 刑法课件.ppt

M’Naghten Rules In 1843 Daniel M’Naghten, intended to kill Sir Robert Peel, killed his secretary by mistake – DM pleaded insanity – acquitted of murder charge – judges formulated the M’Naghten rules which have since become accepted as providing a comprehensive definition of insanity M’Naghten Rules According to these rules, it must be proved by the defence, on a balance of probabilities that, at the time of the offence, D was labouring under such a defect of reason, arising from a disease of the mind, so as X to know the nature quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, he did X know what he was doing was wrong Disease of the Mind R v Kemp K charged with causing GBH to his wife – evidence showed K suffered from arteriosclerosis (hardening of arteries) – although the disease had X reached a stage at which he displayed any general sign of mental trouble, it led to congestion of blood in the brain causing a temporary lapse of consciousness in which state the attack was made R v Kemp Held: arteriosclerosis is a disease capable of affecting the mind in such a way as to cause a defect, temporary or permanently, of its reasoning, understanding, etc. – it’s a disease within the McNaghten Rule Diminished Responsibility DR disease of the mind Insanity = a general defence DR covers wider area than insanity DR ≠ general defence DR is only available in murder cases Diminished Responsibility 3 elements in DR: 1. D suffered from “abnormality of mind” 2. which arose from an arrested or retarded development of the mind (i.e. an inherent cause); or an injury or disease 3. which substantially impaired D’s responsibility for his/her action Diminished Responsibility X a general defence, only available in case of murder Effect = partial excuse, D is acquitted of murder but is convicted of manslaughter Burden of proof rests on D (R v Dunbar) Standard of proof = on the balance of probabilities R v Byrne B charged with murder of young girl whom he had strangled wh