Partial Defences to Murder (Appendix B) [2004] EWLC 290 (06 August 2004)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just Â£1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

The Law Commission

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Law Commission >> Partial Defences to Murder (Appendix B) [2004] EWLC 290 (06 August 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/other/EWLC/2004/290(appendix_b).html

[New search] [Help]

APPENDIX B

THE DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY PLEA IN OPERATION – AN EMPIRICAL STUDY

By R D Mackay^[1]

Professor of Criminal Policy and Mental Health, De Montfort Law School, De Montfort University, Leicester.

Diminished responsibility is a plea which reduces murder to manslaughter. The essentials of the plea are contained in section 2(1) of the Homicide Act 1957, which provides:

Where a person kills or is a party to the killing of another, he shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility in doing or being a party to the killing.

Section 2(2) makes it clear that, as with insanity, the burden of proving this defence on a balance of probabilities rests upon the accused ^[2] and if the plea is successful, subsection 3 ensures a conviction for manslaughter, thus enabling the judge to exercise discretion as to sentence.

Although initially some judges adopted a narrow interpretation of what could amount to an 'abnormality of mind' within the section, it was not long before the Court of Appeal, in the landmark case of R v Byrne,^[3] decided that a wider approach was called for. The crucial question was whether a sexual psychopath who had killed the victim while suffering from an impulse control disorder was entitled to have his diminished responsibility plea left to the jury. In answering this question in the affirmative, Lord Parker CJ made the following remark, which was to have a fundamental influence on the scope of section 2:

'Abnormality of mind', which has to be contrasted with the time honoured expression in the M'Naghten Rules, 'defect of reason', means a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal. It appears to us to be wide enough to cover the mind's activities in all its aspects, not only the perception of physical acts and matters and the ability to form a rational judgment whether an act is right or wrong, but also the ability to exercise will-power to control physical acts in accordance with that rational judgement.^[4]

The effect of this judgment was not only to permit the notion of irresistible impulse to be introduced into English law but also to allow a wide variety of less serious forms of mental condition to be brought within the scope of 'abnormality of mind'.

The wording of section 2(1) has been the subject of much criticism as is clearly outlined in the Law Commission's Consultation Paper on Partial Defences to Murder^[5] and will not be further discussed. Unlike its counterpart, provocation, with which it has an important interrelationship, there are official statistics kept on the successful use of diminished responsibility as a partial defence. In this connection it is interesting to note that the number of successful pleas has fallen dramatically. Indeed, the most recent statistics reveal that in 2001/02, for the first time the total number of successful pleas fell below 20 (the figure for 2000/01) to 15.^[6] This number of pleas can be contrasted with 1998/99 where the total was 40 and 1992 where the total was 78. In short there has been a consistent fall in the successful use of diminished responsibility in recent years.

So far as is known there have been no empirical research studies of diminished responsibility since Susanne Dell's study was published in 1984.^[7] Accordingly, it was decided to examine a sample of diminished responsibility cases for the five years from 1997 to 2001. In doing so it must be pointed out that it has not been possible, for a number of reasons, to gain access to all the relevant cases. The Homicide Statistics reveal that in the five year period between 1997 and 2001 there were around 171 successful diminished responsibility pleas.^[8] In this study, the total number of cases accessed is 157, including 21 unsuccessful pleas.^[9] Despite the fact that this study does not claim to have examined all the successful cases it is hoped that it will be of value, especially as no other study, so far as is known, has looked at any unsuccessful pleas.

The Research Findings

During the research period of 1997-2001 there was a total of 157 defendants ^[10] where diminished responsibility was identified as a defence which was raised during the course of the trial process.

With regard to sex and age, unsurprisingly males constituted the vast majority of defendants with 128 (81.5%) males compared to 29 females (18.5%). The recent Homicide Statistics give an overall rate of 91.4% for males indicted for homicide in 2001/02.^[11]

Tables 1a and 1b give a breakdown of the sex/age distribution of the defendants. The mean age for defendants was 37 (age range 12-83).

Table 1a and b - age range of accused * sex of accused Crosstabulation

Table 1a

Table 1b

The ethnic breakdown of defendants is presented in Table 2 and shows that around 74.5% (n=117) were white and born in the United Kingdom.

Table 2 - born uk * ethnic group Crosstabulation

With regard to criminal records although 51.6% (n=81) of the sample had previous convictions, (11.1%, n=9 of whom were women) only 31.8% (n=50) had been convicted of offences of violence (of which only 8%, n=4 were female). As for psychiatric history, 70.7% (n=111) had had contact with psychiatric services (of which 19.8%, n=22 were female).

Turning to victims, their sex/age distribution is presented in Tables 3a and 3b. The mean age for victims was 40.5 (range 1month-91). It can be seen that the majority, 51.6 % (n=81), were female

Table 3a - sex of victim

Table 3b - age range of victims * sex of victim Crosstabulation

The relationship of the victim to the accused is given in Tables 4a and 4b. As expected the vast majority of the victims (88.8%, n=141) were already known to the accused at the time of the killing, with only 10.2% (n=16) being classed as strangers. The biggest group of 25.5% (n=40) is "spouse".

Table 4a – relationship of victim to accused

Table 4b - relationship of victim to accused

Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

spouse 40 25.5 25.5

ex spouse 1 .6 26.1

cohabitant 17 10.8 36.9

ex cohabitant 2 1.3 38.2

lover 4 2.6 40.8

ex lover 3 1.9 42.7

parent, step parent 12 7.6 50.3

son, daughter 13 8.3 58.6

sibling, step sibling 3 1.9 60.5

other family 7 4.5 70.0

friend 14 8.9 73.9

stranger 16 10.2 84.1

other known (acquaintance) 25 15.9 100.0

Total 157 100.0

It has been stated recently that "15% of all recorded homicides in England and Wales could be categorised under a 'domestic' heading. It is also clear from national and international data, and research literature, that women are most at risk from being killed by a partner. According to the Homicide Index, between 1995 and 1999, 44% of all female homicide victims in England and Wales – and 50% of those killed by men – were killed by a current or former sexual partner. This compares to just seven per cent of all male victims."^[12] Further, overall the recent Homicide Statistics reveal that "40% of male victims and 66% of female victims knew the main suspect".^[13] It can be seen below from Table 5a that most of the male (n=64, 84.2%) and female (n=77, 95%) victims in the research sample knew the accused.

Table 5a shows that overall 88.9% (n=72) of the female victims were killed by male defendants while 69% (n=20) of the female defendants killed males. In table 5b below it can be seen that of all the female victims 63.4% (n=52) were killed by a current or former lover/partner. Of those 52, 67.3% (n=35) were killed by their spouse. The equivalent percentages and numbers for male victims are 19.7% (n=15) and 33.3% (n=5). Table 5b also shows that of the 128 male defendants 39.8% (n=51) killed a current or former female sexual partner while of the 29 female defendants, 41.4% (n=12) killed a current or former male sexual partner. Each of the 29 female defendants knew the victim, 11 (38%) of which were their children.

Table 5a sex of accused * sex of victim Crosstabulation

Table 5b - relationship of victim to accused * sex of victim * sex of accused Crosstabulation

The place or venue where the killing actually took place is given in Tables 6a and 6b. It can be seen from these that the vast majority of the offences took place in the matrimonial/partner's/family home (45.2%, n=71) or the victim's home (19.7%, n= 31). Taken together these two categories account for 65% (n=102) of the research sample. If one includes the accused's home (n=12) this rises to 72.6%.

Table 6a venue of offence

Venue of offence Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

matrimonial/partner's/family home 71 45.2 45.2

victim's home 31 19.8 65.0

accused's home 12 7.6 72.6

public house 1 .6 73.2

street 18 11.5 84.7

other 24 15.3 100.0

Total 157 100.0

Table 6b – venue of offence

Table 7 gives details of the "apparent circumstances for the killing". Although the two categories of "rage, quarrel or fight" account for 46.5% (n=73) of the total, the largest single category is "suspect mentally disturbed" at 42% (n=66). Having regard to the nature of the diminished responsibility plea, this latter category is perhaps smaller than one might have expected. However, it must be pointed out that in no way does this mean that defendants were not mentally disturbed at the time of the offence in some of the other cases. As a category it is inevitably somewhat inexact and has been used in those cases where it seemed clear that mental disturbance was either present at the time of or instrumental in the commission of the offence.

Table 7 - apparent circumstances for killing

Tables 8a, 8b and 8c show the "method of killing" and as expected the use of a "sharp instrument" predominates at 61.1% (n=96). This is much greater than revealed in the recent Homicide Statistics where, although it remains the most common method of killing, the figure is 33%.^[14]

Table 8a – method of killing

Table 8b - method of killing

Table 8c - method of killing * sex of victim Crosstabulation

It can be seen from Table 9 that the method of killing for the victims who were killed by a current or former sexual partner was mainly a "sharp instrument" followed by "blunt instrument" and "strangulation".

Table 9 - relationship of victim to accused * method of killing Crosstabulation

Aspects of the Trial

The Crown Court files could not shed light on all of the intricacies of the trial process in each case but the following data were extracted and may help to explain a number of different aspects of what took place. First, Tables 10a and 10b show that there was no jury trial in 77.1% (n=121) of the cases, 25 of whom were females. This represents 86.2% of female defendants compared to 75% (n=96) of male defendants.

Table 10a - jury trial

Table 10b - jury trial * sex of accused Crosstabulation

With regard to verdicts, Tables 11a and 11b reveal that in 80.3% of the cases (n=126) the finding was one of diminished responsibility, of which 6.3% (n=8) were contested. Further, 22 of the contested cases resulted in murder convictions, 21 of which were failed diminished responsibility pleas (the exception is case 33 where D refused to allow DR to be used at his trial). This means that out of a total of 36 contested cases, diminished responsibility pleas were successful in 22.2% (n=8) of these cases. If one adds the six unspecified manslaughter cases we have a total of 14 out of 36 (38.9%) contested cases where defendants avoided murder convictions. Of the 36 cases where there was a jury trial, 36.1% (n=13) involved the killing by a male defendant of a current or former female partner. This represents 24.5% of the total number (n=51) of killings by males of their current or former female partner. Of those 13 cases, 61.5% (n=8) resulted in a conviction for murder By contrast, only one such case (case 37) involved the killing by a female of her current or former male partner. This represents 8.3% of the total number (n=12) of killings by females of their current or former male partner. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter.^[15] Further, of the 51 male defendants referred to above who killed their current or former female partner, a plea was accepted in 38 cases (74.5%). The corresponding figure for females is 11 out of 12 cases, representing 91.6%.

Table 11a - verdict

Table 11b - verdict * jury trial Crosstabulation

Tables 12a and 12b below give the sentences for each case. It is interesting to note from Table 12b that of the 126 diminished responsibility verdicts, 49.2% (n=62) resulted in a restriction order and six in a hospital order, while 46% (n=58) were punished in the normal way. Of this latter group, 10 were given discretionary life penalties, while 16 received probation orders and two were given suspended prison sentences.

Table 12a – sentence

Sentence Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

mandatory life 22 14.0 14.0

discretionary life 12 7.7 21.7

between 7 and 10 years 12 7.6 29.3

between 5 and 7 years 10 6.4 35.7

between 3 and five years 9 5.7 41.4

between 1 and 3 years 5 3.2 44.6

probation/supervision 17 10.8 55.4

fully suspended sentence 2 1.3 56.7

restriction order 62 39.5 96.2

hospital order 6 3.8 100.0

Total 157 100.0

Table 12b - sentence * verdict Crosstabulation

Table 12c shows that 38% of the female defendants (n=11) were given probation orders. This in turn accounts for 64.7% of all the probation orders.

Table 12c - sentence * sex of accused Crosstabulation

The Psychiatric Reports

The psychiatric reports on the Crown Court files which addressed the issue of diminished responsibility were all analysed. The maximum number of DR reports in any one file was five. However, it can be seen from Table 13 below that in nine cases the files contained no DR reports. What this means is that the Crown Court files clearly do not contain all relevant reports and the following analysis must be read with this caveat in mind. However, despite this deficiency in the data, the DR reports reveal much of interest. First, Table 13 reveals that five files contained the maximum of five reports, compared to 65 files which each had two reports. The grand total of DR reports was 366.

Table 13 - psychiatric reports on file

Table 14 below shows that the defence requested 43.7% (n=160) of the overall DR reports followed by the prosecution at 35.2% (n=129).

Table 14 - report sources

With regard to diagnostic groups, Tables 15a and 15b reveal that the most frequent primary diagnosis ^[16] used in connection with the diminished responsibility plea was depression (28.7%, n=45) followed by schizophrenia (23.6%, n=37), personality disorder (12.7%, n=20) and psychosis (12.7%, n=20). It should be pointed out that although there were nine files containing no DR reports in six of these cases it was possible to identify the primary diagnosis from other sources. In only three cases could this not be achieved. Further, the three cases of "no mental disorder" all resulted in convictions for murder where the DR reports on file found no abnormality of mind at the time of the offence.

Table 15a – primary diagnosis

Table 15b - primary diagnosis

Table 16a below shows the relationship between diagnosis and sentence. This reveals, not unsurprisingly, that schizophrenia and psychosis were the two most prominent diagnoses leading to restriction orders. By way of contrast of the 20 diagnoses of personality disorder, five resulted in murder convictions and eight discretionary life sentences. On the other hand a diagnosis of depression resulted in a much more mixed range of sentences, from a mandatory penalty of life imprisonment in 6 cases, to probation in 11 cases. In order to explore this further Table 16b below displays the relationship between diagnosis and jury trial where it can be seen that depression, personality disorder and "other" diagnoses were the major diagnostic categories which led to the cases being tried by a jury as opposed to schizophrenia and psychosis where the plea was only placed before a jury in a total of three cases. It is also interesting to note that in 82.2% (n=37) of cases where depression was the primary diagnosis the Crown was prepared to accept a plea of guilty to manslaughter on the basis of DR compared to 60% (n=12) of cases where the primary diagnosis was one of personality disorder.

Table 16a - sentence * primary diagnosis Crosstabulation

?Key: A= schizophrenia: B= depression: C= personality disorder: D= psychosis: E =mental impairment: F = addiction: G=adjustment disorder: H=other: I= No mental disorder: J = unclear

Table 16b - primary diagnosis * jury trial Crosstabulation

The DR reports are of course vital as to how a diminished responsibility plea progresses. Table 17 below shows the broad opinions given in all the DR reports in respect of whether or not the report writer favoured the plea.

Table 17 - report opinions on DR

It can be seen from this that the vast majority of report writers whose reports were in the court files favoured DR with only 41 reaching the view that the accused's condition did not fall within the scope of section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, and 20 making it clear that DR was an issue for the jury to decide. In those reports which favoured the plea some typical examples of the ways in which psychiatrists would couch their conclusions as to the ultimate issue are given with reference to case numbers:

Case 1

"I believe therefore that a defence within the terms of section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, is available to the defendant." (Report for the CPS.)

Case 8

"It would appear that the defendant was not in full control of his actions and I would support a plea on grounds of diminished responsibility and mental abnormality." (Report for the Court).

Case 26

"At the material time he was suffering from a psychotic condition. I believe this condition significantly affected his reasoning and perception such that a plea of diminished responsibility under the Homicide Act is appropriate." (Report for the CPS)

Case 27

"In my opinion either [condition] alone would be sufficient to have diminished his responsibility for his actions..." (Report for the defence)

Case 62

I believe therefore, that he was at the material time suffering from an abnormality of mind in terms of section 2 of the Homicide Act. His mental illness (the depressive episode with psychotic features) could be considered as a disease arising from inherent causes …I would therefore support, if it were raised, a defence of diminished responsibility." (Report for the CPS)

Case 104

"I believe that at the time of the index offence he was mentally ill and remains so at this moment in time. Therefore, Section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 will be applicable in his case." (Report for the defence)

Case 105

"At the time there was diminished responsibility for his actions." (Report for the defence)

With regard to the wording of s. 2(1), Table 18 below shows that report writers frequently failed to consider the bracketed causes.^[17] As a result the majority of reports did not discuss these aetiological causes. If one ignores the 19 reports where DR was not mentioned (which reduces the total number of relevant reports to 347), what this means is that in 55.6% (n=193) of the reports DR was discussed without commenting on the causes. Having regard to the fact that the courts have made it clear on a number of occasions^[18] that the accused's "abnormality of mind" must arise from one or more of these causes this may seem strange. However, it can more than likely be explained by the fact that these causes are not psychiatrically recognised concepts.

Table 18 - bracketed causes

Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

not mentioned 212 57.9 57.9

arrested development of mind 3 0.8 58.7

inherent causes 28 7.7 66.4

induced by disease 96 26.2 92.4

Induced by injury 3 0.8 94.2

combination of causes 24 6.6 100.0

Total 366 100.0

Further, although "induced by disease" was the most frequent cause (n=96) this category was selected by the research in all cases where report writers classified the defendant's condition as a "disease", despite the fact that in some of these instances the words "induced by" were not used.

When it came to the issue of "substantial impairment of mental responsibility", Table 19 shows that report writers failed to make any mention of this concept in 16.7% (n=61) of the reports. Again if as above this is adjusted to exclude the 19 cases where DR was not mentioned, the number is 42 (12.1%), while 9.8% (n=34) positively refused to give a view mainly on the ground that it was for the court and not for them to reach a conclusion on this issue. What is interesting, however, is the frequency with which report writers were willing to give a clear view on this matter. Overall, 69.7% (n=242 out of the total of 347 reports which mentioned DR) of the reports reached such a conclusion, with only 8.5% (n=29) giving a negative as opposed to a positive view.

Table 19 - substantial impairment of mental responsibility

In those reports which favoured the plea some typical examples of the ways in which psychiatrists would couch their conclusions as to the issue of substantial impairment are again given with reference to case numbers:

Case 3

"In my opinion at the time of the alleged offence, he was suffering with an abnormality of mind, namely a serious depressive illness, which in my opinion substantially diminished his responsibility for the killing," (Report for the CPS)

Case 13

"In my opinion he was suffering from an abnormality of mind, and further, in my opinion, this was such as to substantially impair his mental responsibility for his actions, within the meaning of section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957." (Report for the defence)

Case 14

"At the time of the alleged offence I believe that, because of his schizophrenia, he was suffering from such an abnormality of mind that it substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts. Accordingly a defence of diminished responsibility would be supportable on the evidence." (Report for the Defence)

Case 30

"In my opinion his mental state was such that as a result of the abnormality of mind, a jury could quite reasonably conclude that his responsibility for the offence was substantially diminished." (Report for the defence)

Case 33

"..at the material time, he was suffering from such an abnormality of mind, induced by disease, as to substantially impair his mental responsibility for his acts in doing the killing." (Report for the CPS)

Case 51

"I understand that it is a matter for the jury to decide whether this abnormality of mind substantially impaired her mental responsibility for her acts and omissions. I would, however, support that opinion." (Report for the defence)

Case 58

"..it is probable that the defendant's abnormality of mind substantially impaired his mental responsibility at the time of the killing." (Report for the CPS)

Case 71

"The defendant's abnormality of mind is severe and it is clear to me that his abnormality of mind substantially impaired his mental responsibility for the killing." (Report for the CPS)

Case 107

"In my view, at the time of the offence he was suffering from such abnormality of mind due to mental depression caused by his marital problems, as to substantially impair his mental responsibility for the act of killing." (Report for the CPS)

Case 124

"I am further of the opinion that his abnormality of mind at the material time of the alleged offence would have been sufficient substantially to diminish his responsibility for his acts/or omissions." (Report for the CPS)

Case 138

"The issue of whether his mental responsibility was substantially diminished….is ultimately an issue for the jury. In my opinion I believe there is strong evidence to support the argument that his mental responsibility was substantially diminished at the material time." (Report for the defence)

A further point concerns the issue of how often the insanity defence was referred to by report writers as a possible alternative to the diminished responsibility plea. The answer is that this only clearly occurred in a mere 14 of the reports. In all the rest of the reports insanity was either expressly ruled out or not mentioned. The fact that this number is so small is of interest as it means that in very few cases was insanity proposed by report writers as a realistic alternative. Indeed, in only one case (case 38) was the insanity defence actually used as such an alternative, where it was rejected by a jury in favour of DR.

It is also of note that 31 of the reports mentioned provocation as a possible plea. In addition, although there were 9 common law manslaughter verdicts which may have been based on provocation, in no case was it suggested that the verdict was based on a combination of diminished responsibility and provocation.

It will be recalled that there were 36 cases which went to jury trial. They are case numbers:

2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 24, 28, 33, 37, 38, 47, 58, 60, 68, 69, 73, 81, 93, 111, 112, 113, 114, 118, 123, 126, 127, 131, 135, 136, 142, 144, 147 and 156.

It will be recalled from Tables 11a and 11b that of the 36 contested cases, a jury rejected the diminished responsibility plea and convicted the defendant of murder in 58.3% (n=21) of such cases with the plea only being successful in 22.2% (n=8). In a further 16.6% (n=6) of contested cases a jury returned verdicts of common law manslaughter. It may tentatively be concluded, therefore, that juries are more likely to reject the diminished responsibility plea once it is put to them. However, having regard to the fact that these are more likely to be the cases where report writers have major disagreements and which the CPS consider need to be contested this seems hardly surprising.^[19]

Further, Table 20 below shows that of the 14 cases where the trial judge had discretion over the sentence in the contested cases, 11 received prison sentences and three were given restriction orders. In short, only in uncontested cases were probation orders or suspended sentences used.

Table 20 - sentence * jury trial Crosstabulation

Concluding Remarks

As has already been emphasised this study does not claim to include all the cases where diminished responsibility was pleaded during the research period of 1997-2001. Nevertheless, it does present data relating to 157 defendants where the plea was clearly an issue of relevance within the trial process. In doing so the data from this particular empirical research study reveals the following points:

Out of a sample of 157 defendants there were 29 females (18.5%) see Table 1a.

Victims were fairly equally split with 51.6% (n=81) female, see Table 3b.

The vast majority of the victims (89.8%, n=141) were already known to the accused, only 10.2% (n=16) were strangers. 95% (n=77) of the female victims knew the accused, see table 5a.

The vast majority of the offences took place in the home of the victim/partner/accused. This accounted for 72.6% (n=114) of the sample, see table 6a.

"Rage, quarrel or fight" accounted for 46.5% (n=73) of the "apparent circumstances" for the offences. The largest single category of apparent circumstance was "suspect mentally disturbed" at 42% (n=66), see table 7.

The most common method of killing was a "sharp instrument" (61.1%, n=96), see table 8b.

There was no jury trial in 77.1% (n=121) of the cases, 20.8% (n=25) of whom were females, see table 10b. This represents 86.2% of the female defendants compared to 75% (n=96) of male defendants.

Of the four female defendants who were the subject of a jury trial only 1 was charged with the murder of her male sexual partner and she was convicted of DR manslaughter. By contrast of the 32 male defendants, who were the subject of a jury trial, 13 were charged with the murder of a female partner or ex-partner and 9 were convicted of murder.

In 80.3% of the cases (n=126) the finding was one of diminished responsibility, of which 6.3% (n=8) were contested, see table11b.

In 13.4% (n=21) of the cases a diminished responsibility plea failed resulting in 21 murder convictions.^[20] This means that out of a total of 36 contested cases, diminished responsibility pleas were successful in 22.2% (n=8) cases. If one adds the six unspecified manslaughter cases we have a total of 14 out of 36 contested cases where defendants avoided murder convictions, see tables 11a and 12a.

Of the 126 diminished responsibility verdicts, 49.2% (n=62) resulted in a restriction order and six in a hospital order, while 46% (n=58) were punished in the normal way. Of this latter group, 17.2% (n=10) were given discretionary life penalties, while 27.6% (n=16) received probation orders and two were given suspended prison sentences, see table 12b.

38% of the female defendants (n=11) were given probation orders. This in turn accounts for 64.7% of all the probation orders (n=17), see table 12c.

The grand total of psychiatric reports which considered diminished responsibility was 366, see table 14.

The defence requested 43.7% (n=160) of the overall DR reports followed by the prosecution at 35.2% (n=129), see table 14.

The most frequent primary diagnosis used in connection with the diminished responsibility plea was depression (28.7%, n=45) followed by schizophrenia (23.6%, n=37), personality disorder (12.7%, n=20) and psychosis (12.7%, n=20), see table 15b.

Schizophrenia (n=33) and psychosis (n=14) were the two most prominent diagnoses leading to restriction orders. By way of contrast of the 20 diagnoses of personality disorder, five resulted in murder convictions and eight in discretionary life penalties, see table 16a.

A diagnosis of depression resulted in a much more mixed range of sentences, from a mandatory penalty of life imprisonment in 6 cases, to probation in 11 cases, see table 16a.

Depression, personality disorder and "other" diagnoses were the major diagnostic categories which led to the cases being tried by a jury as opposed to schizophrenia and psychosis where the plea was only placed before a jury in a total of three cases, see table 16b.

The vast majority of report writers whose reports were in the court files favoured DR with only 41 reaching the view that the accused's condition did not fall within the scope of section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, and 20 making it clear that DR was an issue for the jury to decide, see table 17.

Report writers frequently failed to consider the bracketed causes.^[21] As a result the majority of reports (55.6%, n=193) did not discuss these aetiological causes, see table 18.

The majority of report writers were willing to give a clear view on the issue of "substantial impairment of mental responsibility". Overall, 69.7% (n=242) of the reports reached such a conclusion, with only 8.5% (n=29) giving a negative as opposed to a positive view, see table19.

The insanity defence was rarely referred to by report writers as a possible alternative to the diminished responsibility plea.

APPENDIX: DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY CASE SYNOPSES

Case 1

D, a male aged 34, stabbed V, a black stranger aged 56, in the back at a railway station. D was following command hallucinations to kill a black man. In 1996 D received a hospital order for robbery and wounding after he had heard voices telling him to stab a black man. After the alleged offence he was detained in Broadmoor under s 48 MHA. 3 of the 4 psychiatric reports on file favoured DR on the basis of schizophrenia. D's plea of DR was accepted and he received a restriction order.

Case 2 Trial

D, a male aged 50, stabbed his ex-lover, aged 36, in her back garden. He had become possessive and said he was going to commit suicide. There were 2 psychiatric reports on file both instructed by the CPS. One clearly favoured DR on the basis of depression. The other was guarded concluding that although D had an abnormality of mind "I have not been able to establish any causal link or association between D's symptoms, and his state of mind and his alleged offence. It is of course a matter for the jury to decide on the ultimate issue of impairment of responsibility after hearing all the evidence". D was convicted of murder after a trial.

Case 3

D, a male aged 38, killed his ex-partner, aged 30, by hitting her on the head with a hammer. She had been his nurse when he was a psychiatric patient and their relationship had developed. They had a child together but were not living together at the time of the offence. Ds DR plea was accepted by the prosecution. He received a sentence of three years imprisonment. Two psychiatric reports, one for the CPS and one for the defence both favoured DR on the basis of depression.

Case 4 Trial

D, a male aged 26, struck his lover, aged 34, on the head with a hammer when she refused to leave her husband. 2 psychiatric reports, one for the CPS and one for the defence found no mental disorder at the time of the offence and considered there were no grounds for DR. The jury by a majority verdict convicted D of common law manslaughter for which he was given a sentence of 7 years imprisonment.

Case 5

D, a male aged 70, hit his wife, aged 75, on the head with a hammer. She had been ill for some time and was confined to a wheelchair. D said he did it to put her out of her misery. 3 psychiatric reports favoured DR and one for the CPS did not. Ds DR plea was accepted and he received 18 months imprisonment.

Case 6 Trial

D, a male aged 64, stabbed his wife, aged 58, after she had served him with divorce papers. A first psychiatric report for the defence favoured DR on the basis of adjustment disorder. However, a second report for the defence found abnormality of mind but made it clear that the issue of substantial impairment was a matter for the jury. A third report for the Court concluded that Ds condition was not an abnormality of mind, which would have substantially impaired his mental responsibility. Finally, 2 reports for the CPS found no DR. D was convicted of murder by a jury.

Case 7

D, aged 50, hit his wife, aged 38, over the head with a hammer. There was marital disharmony and the offence took place after she chided him. A single psychiatric report prepared for the Court favoured DR on the basis of depression. Ds DR plea was accepted and he received 6 years imprisonment.

Case 8

D, aged 83, shot his wife, aged 87, twice in the head. She suffered from dementia and had had a stroke. It was described as a mercy killing. 2 psychiatric reports, one for the Court and one for the CPS both favoured DR on the basis of depression. Ds DR plea was accepted and he received a Probation Order.

Case 9

D, a male aged 26, stabbed V, aged 24, a fellow male psychiatric patient who had sneaked in to his room, argued with him and accused him of being a Nazi. A report for the defence and the CPS both favoured DR on the basis of schizophrenia. Ds DR plea was accepted on the basis of personality disorder and he received a discretionary life sentence.

Case 10 Trial

D, a male aged 34, strangled V, aged 57, a transsexual who had changed sex from male to female in 1999. They were friends but V had propositioned D sexually. At his trial D pleaded DR and provocation. A psychiatric report for the CPS favoured DR on the basis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. A jury returned a DR verdict and D was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment.

Case 11

D, a male aged 20, killed a fellow male resident, aged 22, in a care home for psychiatric patients by stabbing him. They had an argument about a games console. A psychiatric report for the defence and the CPS both favoured DR on the basis of schizophrenia. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order under the MHA.

Case 12 Trial

D, a male aged 52, stabbed his wife, aged 42. They had recently separated and D wanted her back but she refused. The killing took place in the marital home. One psychiatric report for the CPS found no DR. The jury returned a majority verdict of murder.

Case 13 Trial

D, a male aged 36, stabbed V, a female aged 44, who worked for a credit company and had come to his flat to collect money owed. D could not explain why he had killed V. 2 psychiatric reports for the CPS and the Court found no DR. 3 reports for the defence supported DR on the basis of personality disorder. At his trial a jury returned a murder verdict.

Case 14

D, a male aged 26, killed his father, aged 55, by hitting on the head with a pickaxe. D had a history of mental illness and could not explain the offence. 2 Psychiatric reports for the defence both favoured DR on the basis of schizophrenia. Ds DR plea was accepted by the prosecution and he received a hospital order.

Case 15 Trial

D, a male aged 57, killed his granddaughter, aged 3, who he was looking after, by dropping her from a 7^th floor balcony of a block of flats. D was drunk and was in a bad temper after being told to leave the club where he was drinking. D said it was an accident. A psychiatric report for the Court found no DR and a jury convicted D of murder.

Case 16

D, a Moroccan woman, aged 44, stabbed her husband, aged 59, outside their home. She was deluded and believed V was trying to poison her. A psychiatric report for the defence and the Court both favoured DR and her plea was accepted. D received a restriction order.

Case 17 Trial

D, a male aged 25, stabbed V, a male aged 19, fatally and two other males who he wounded. They were strangers. D was drunk and had a psychiatric history. The offences were motiveless. A report for the CPS did not favour DR. Another report for the CPS and one for the defence both found DR. A jury returned a DR verdict and he received a restriction order.

Case 18

V, a female, aged 18, stabbed her lover, a male aged 39, in the bedroom of her flat. She was experiencing flashbacks of sexual abuse as a child at the time. A report for the defence and the CPS both favoured DR on the basis of personality disorder and her plea was accepted. She received a discretionary life penalty.

Case 19

D, a male aged 57, slit his partner's (aged 50) throat. He was deluded into believing she was trying to poison him. The offence took place in their campervan as she slept. Two reports one for the defence and the CPS both favoured DR on the basis of psychosis and his plea was accepted. He received a discretionary life penalty but this was quashed on appeal and replaced with a restriction order.

Case 20

D, a male aged 34 born in Thailand, stabbed V a male friend, aged 29, outside a pub. D was angry at alleged remarks V had made about his mother. D had a history of mental illness. 2 reports for the court both favoured DR on the basis of schizophrenia and Ds DR plea was accepted by the prosecution. He received a restriction order.

Case 21

D, a female aged 20 born in Uganda, suffocated her 3 year old daughter at home due to depression and suicidal thoughts. 2 psychiatric reports for the defence both favoured DR on the basis of depression. Ds DR plea was accepted and she received a hospital order.

Case 22

D, a male aged 26 together with his brother and another co-defendant had an argument in a pub with V, aged 42. They beat him to death and later attacked another V which led to an attempted murder charge. Ds brother was convicted of murder. One report for the defence found DR on the basis of schizophrenia. Ds DR plea was accepted and he received a restriction order. His attempted murder charge was ordered to remain on file.

Case 23

D, a male aged 65 born in Spain strangled his wife, aged 60. They had separated and they argued because he had paranoid beliefs that she was entering his flat and going through his papers. 2 reports for the CPS, one for the defence and one for the CPS all favoured DR on the basis of schizophrenia and paranoid psychosis. Ds DR plea was accepted and he received a restriction order.

Case 24 Trial

D, a male aged 16, with a co-defendant attacked 2 vagrants and killed one, aged 57, by beating him to death. All 5 reports diagnosed personality disorder, which was untreatable, and only one for the defence found an "abnormality of mind" but considered it was for the jury to decide the issue of substantial impairment of mental responsibility. 4 other reports, 2 for the Court, one for the CPS and one for the defence all found no DR. D was convicted of murder, robbery and GBH. He was sentenced to be detained for life.

Case 25

D, a female aged 29, killed her 5year old son by hitting him with a pickaxe handle, stabbing and strangling him. She attempted to murder her other son. She believed paedophiles were after her children. 3 reports all diagnosed schizophrenia and her DR plea was accepted. She was also convicted of false imprisonment and attempted murder. She received a restriction order.

Case 26

D, a male aged 27, stabbed a male friend, aged 65, in the street after an unwanted sexual advance. He believed he had been sexually abused by V a month before while sleeping. 4 reports favoured DR on the basis of schizophrenia and D received a restriction order.

Case 27

D, a male aged 33, stabbed V a male friend, aged 37, who had sexually molested his girlfriend as all 3 lay on a mattress after a heavy drinking session. 5 reports all favoured DR on the basis of personality disorder and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment.

Case 28 Trial

D, a male aged 41, stabbed his wife, aged 38. They were living apart. D was babysitting. V came back after a night out. D wondered if V would bring a man back. He decided to wait to see if she would. He sat in the dark in the kitchen. She arrived and switched on the light. He said "she went barmy", swearing at him for checking up on her. He held out a knife, to cut himself. She screamed and ran at him. He repeatedly stabbed her with several knives. A report for the defence favoured DR while 2 for the CPS did not. A jury convicted D of murder.

Case 29

D, a Sikh male aged 35 born in the UK, felt ostracised by the Sikh community. He planned to confront and attack the priest at the Sikh temple. In doing so he fatally stabbed a male helper, aged 55, and wounded the priest. Two reports favoured DR on the basis of depression. D's DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order. He pleaded guilty to unlawful wounding.

Case 30

D, a male aged 29, stabbed his father, aged 62, believing that V practised black magic. D had suffered from schizophrenia since 1987 and had twice before stabbed V for which he had received 4 years for wounding in 1992. Two reports favoured DR on the basis of schizophrenia. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 31

D, a male aged 39 stabbed a male neighbour, aged 30, in a block of flats. D believed they had bugged his door and that there was a light sensor in the door to alert the neighbours as to his movements. 3 reports all favoured DR on the basis of schizophrenia. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 32

D, a 12 year old boy stabbed his stepbrother, aged 6 months, and cut off his hand. D was suffering from Asperger syndrome. A psychiatric assessment report opined that while D fulfilled the criteria for mental impairment under the MHA 1983, cutting off V's hand which required accuracy and deliberation ran "counter to the argument for substantial impairment of mental responsibility". D's DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 33 Trial

D, a black male aged 29, stabbed his friend's brother, aged 31, outside V's house. D thought V was talking about him and going to harm him and they argued about this. 3 reports favoured DR on the basis of paranoid psychosis but D refused to allow the plea to be led at his trial. As a result he was convicted of murder. On appeal a manslaughter conviction was substituted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 34

D, a black male aged 21 born in Ethiopia, stabbed his sister, aged 23, in the flat they shared. She was sleeping on the settee. D thought she was putting something in his drink. 2 reports favoured DR on the basis of schizophrenia. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 35

D, a female aged 26, stabbed her female friend, aged 25. They had an argument in Ds flat. D had taken drink and drugs. 2 reports favoured DR on the basis of severe personality disorder. Ds DR plea was accepted and she was given a discretionary life penalty with a 4-year tariff. Her appeal against sentence was allowed in 2001 and a 3-year tariff substituted.

Case 36

D, a male aged 48, drove his car at 3 strangers on purpose killing 2 of them. D had a long history of mental illness. 3 reports all favoured DR on the basis of manic depressive psychosis. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 37 Trial

D, a female aged 36, stabbed her male partner, aged 40, at home after an argument. Theirs was an abusive relationship. V drank a great deal. 2 reports one for the defence and one for the CPS both favoured DR on the basis of personality disorder. The report for the defence also considered provocation to be relevant as D had a number of "enduring characteristics relating to her personality difficulties and her response to the relationship with" V. "These might be seen to have affected her susceptibility to respond as she did under the provocation of the deceased's failure to defend her honour in public and his refusal to challenge the behaviour of the other woman in insulting the defendant over a prolonged period of time leading up to the index offence". A jury convicted D of DR manslaughter and she was sentenced to 42 months imprisonment.

Case 38 Trial

D, a male aged 26, stabbed V, his psychiatric social worker, a female aged 51. He said he was acting on instructions from God. 2 reports diagnosed schizophrenia and favoured DR. At the trial the defence pleaded insanity and both defences were left to the jury which returned a DR verdict. D was given a restriction order.

Case 39

D a retired psychiatrist, aged 58, born in Syria, set fire to the flat he shared with V, a male aged 60, who died in the blaze. D was depressed and wanted to end his life. 2 reports diagnosed depression. Ds DR plea was accepted and he received a sentence of 6 years imprisonment.

Case 40

D, a male aged 31, strangled his wife, aged 33, after an argument. Theirs was an abusive relationship and D had been drinking. 2 reports favoured DR on the basis of depression and alcohol dependency syndrome. D's DR plea was accepted and he was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.

Case 41

D, a male aged 68, stabbed his daughter-in-law, aged 38, in her home where he was staying. There was no apparent motive but D attempted suicide after the offence. 3 reports diagnosed depression and favoured DR. Ds DR plea was accepted and he received a hospital order.

Case 42

D, a male aged 29, stabbed his grandmother, aged 69. D had a long psychiatric history including a hospital order for wounding. One report for the court diagnosed psychopathic disorder and favoured DR. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a discretionary life penalty with a tariff of 5 years and 3 months.

Case 43

D, a female born in the Philippines, aged 27, stabbed her husband, aged 47, in the marital home after he had forcible sex with her. Theirs was an abusive relationship. 3 reports diagnosed depression and favoured DR. Ds DR plea was accepted and she was given a 3 year probation order with mental treatment.

Case 44

D, a male aged 28, beat his grandmother, aged 84, to death at her home. He had taken drink and drugs and had a psychiatric history. 3 reports diagnosed schizophrenia and favoured DR. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 45

D, a male aged 21, stabbed a male neighbour aged 41. D had a long psychiatric history. There was no motive for the attack. 2 reports favoured DR on the basis of schizophrenia. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 46

D, a male aged 70, killed his wife, aged 86, with a hammer. Vs health had deteriorated and D was concerned about this. 2 reports favoured DR on the basis of depression. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment full suspended with 2 years supervision.

Case 47 Trial

D, an Asian male aged 32, beat his female partner, aged 18, to death. D had a long psychiatric history and suffered from epilepsy. An epileptic automatism defence was supported by 3 reports for the defence but not by 2 prosecution reports. 2 of the defence reports favoured DR on the basis of personality disorder but this was rebutted by one of the reports for the prosecution. After a trial a jury convicted D of murder and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Case 48

D, a black male aged 19, killed V, a female friend, aged 57, by beating her. There was no apparent motive. D was deaf and had a psychiatric history, which included violent episodes. 2 reports for the court both diagnosed manic depression. One of these reports favoured DR. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 49

D, a male aged 16, stabbed his grandmother, aged 70, in the belief that her side of the family was evil. D had a psychiatric history. 2 reports favoured DR on the basis of schizophrenia. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 50

D, a male aged 29, stabbed V, aged 26, who had a homosexual relationship with D. D wanted V back and was jealous of Vs new relationship. D had a psychiatric history. 3 reports favoured DR on the basis of schizophrenia. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 51

D, a female aged 31, stabbed her male partner, aged 43, after an argument over her cat. D had a serious alcohol problem and a history of hydrocephalus. 3 reports diagnosed personality disorder and alcohol dependence and favoured DR. Ds DR plea was accepted and she was given a discretionary life penalty with a tariff of 3 years and 10 months.

Case 52

D, a male aged 47, strangled his female partner, aged 44 for no apparent motive. D had a psychiatric history. 3 reports diagnosed personality disorder but all made it clear that the issue of "substantial impairment" was a matter for the court to decide. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a discretionary life penalty with a tariff of 10 years.

Case 53

D, a male aged 31 born in Angola, stabbed a stranger, aged 42, who was living in the bedroom D had slept in formerly in a mental health hostel. D had absconded from a psychiatric unit prior to the offence. Two reports favoured DR on the basis of schizophrenia. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 54

D, a female aged 31, hit her stepfather, aged 68, with a hammer in their home. She had a psychiatric history and was hearing voices at the time. A single report diagnosed schizophrenia as "an inherent cause for her abnormality of mind". Ds DR plea was accepted and she was given a restriction order.

Case 55

D, a male aged 33 born in South Africa, stabbed a male nurse, aged 34. They both worked together and D thought V was talking about him behind his back and calling him a homosexual. 3 reports favoured DR on the basis of paranoid psychosis. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 56

D, a female aged 20, stabbed her aunt, aged 60, with whom she lived. There was no motive for the offence. D had a psychiatric history. Three reports favoured DR on the basis of paranoid psychosis. Ds DR plea was accepted and she was given a restriction order.

Case 57

D, a female aged 37, born in Nigeria strangled her 5 year old son in order to exorcise demons from him. 2 reports favoured DR on the basis of paranoid psychosis. D's DR plea was accepted and she was given a restriction order.

Case 58 Trial

D, a male aged 41 born in the West Indies, stabbed his wife, aged 39. He believed she was having an affair and they argued. A report for the defence and for the CPS found no DR. A second report for the CPS favoured DR on the basis of morbid jealousy. A fourth report, the source of which is unclear, favoured DR on the basis of depression and also mentioned provocation. After a trial D was convicted on the basis of DR and was given a sentence of 7 years imprisonment.

Case 59

D, a female aged 51, poisoned her two sons, aged 20 and 23, both of whom suffered from cerebral palsy. Looking after them became too much for her. 2 reports favoured DR on the basis of depression. Ds DR plea was accepted and she was given a 3 year probation order which was later discharged on the grounds of good progress.

Case 60 Trial

D, a male aged 28 killed his lover, aged 28, by stabbing her with a pair of scissors and a knife. After unprotected sexual activity V had told him that she was HIV positive. A psychiatric report for the defence found evidence of post traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse problems which "could be regarded as causing a degree of diminution of responsibility". It also stated that individuals who suffer from post traumatic stress disorder are "said to be more prone to acts of violent" because of "irritability or outbursts of anger". D pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the basis of a combination of provocation and diminished responsibility. The jury returned a majority verdict of murder and D was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Case 61

D, an Asian female, aged 30, drowned her 4 month old daughter. She heard voices telling her to do it. A psychiatric report for the defence favoured DR on the basis of puerperal psychosis. Ds DR plea was accepted and she received a restriction order.

Case 62

D, a male aged 49, beat his father, aged 73, to death. His wife had recently said she wished to divorce him, out of the blue. D was having a breakdown at the time. Two reports favoured DR on the basis of depressive psychosis. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was sentenced to 42 months imprisonment.

Case 63

D, a male aged 57, stabbed his wife, aged 52. They were living apart. V told D there was someone else and wanted a divorce. Two reports favoured DR on the basis of depression. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a three year probation order which required D to receive such treatment as and when directed by the probation service.

Case 64

D, a male aged 30, stabbed a female PC, aged 25, who had gone to his address to arrest him. D had a psychiatric history and had assaulted the police in the past. Four reports all favoured DR on the basis of schizophrenia. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 65

D, a male aged 51, hit his wife, aged 56, on the head with a hammer. They had marital problems and argued. Three Reports all favoured DR on the basis of depression. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.

Case 66

D, a male aged 26, beat V, a male aged 39, to death in the street. They had a long running dispute which began over a game of pool in a pub. A report for the CPS favoured DR on the basis of psychopathic disorder. Ds DR plea was accepted

and he was given a discretionary life penalty.

Case 67

D, a male aged 30, hit his wife, aged 28, with a hammer while she was asleep. D suspected an affair. Three reports all diagnosed schizophrenia and epilepsy. The CPS eventually accepted D's DR plea after initial reluctance. D received a restriction order. Early reports expressed concerns over Ds fitness to plead.

Case 68 Trial

D, a male aged 24 born in Algeria, stabbed a fellow Algerian, aged 25, after a disagreement. D was drunk. Three reports found no DR while one for the defence found DR on the basis of a disease of the mind arising from abnormal grief reaction, alcohol dependency and acute stress disorder. A jury convicted D of murder and he was given a penalty of life imprisonment.

Case 69 Trial

D, a male aged 36, stabbed his wife, aged 44, in their bedroom at home. There was a history of domestic violence. He suspected infidelity. D pleaded DR on the basis of a defence report which diagnosed a delusional disorder of the persecutory type. 2 other reports were neutral on the issue of DR. A jury convicted D of murder and he received sentence of life imprisonment.

Case 70

D, a male aged 54, stabbed his wife, aged 46 in their home. V had left him and returned to tell him the marriage was over. They argued. A report (not on file) for the CPS found no DR, another found abnormality of mind but gave no view on substantial impairment. Two reports for the defence favoured DR on the basis of depression. The prosecution refused to accept Ds DR plea and a trial began but was halted after discussions in court with the psychiatrists. Ds DR plea was then accepted and he received a restriction order.

Case 71

D, a male aged 52, stabbed his wife, aged 40, in their bedroom. He suspected her of an affair. D had suffered a serious head injury some years earlier. Two reports favoured DR on the basis of PTSD, delusional jealousy, depression and organic brain damage. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 72

D, a male aged 46, stabbed V, a male aged 43, in his car as they argued about Ds wife's affair and her leaving to live with V and taking their children. Two reports favoured DR on the basis of depression. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.

Case 73 Trial

D, a male aged 25, an asylum seeker from Albania, stabbed V, aged 27, in the street. V and D lived in the same house. D believed V was responsible for his abdominal complaint which prevented him from eating. D was initially found unfit to plead but was later remitted for trial. A report favoured DR on the basis of psychosis. A jury convicted D of manslaughter and he was given a discretionary life penalty with a tariff of two years.

Case 74

D, a female aged 51, stabbed her husband, aged 51, at home. They had marital problems and V had been violent towards D. D said V began pushing her and she took a knife from the kitchen to protect herself from his aggression. There were no reports on the file but 2 are referred to, both of which favoured DR on the basis of depression. Ds DR plea was accepted and she was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.

Case 75

D, a female aged 18, stabbed her male partner, aged 23, in their flat. Theirs was a violent relationship. They argued about splitting up. V claimed the stabbing was an accident. The prosecution would not accept Vs manslaughter plea based on lack of intent but did accept her DR plea. There were no reports on file but 2 are referred to both of which favoured DR on the basis of depression. V was sentenced to 4 years detention substituted on appeal to a 2 year probation order.

Case 76

D, a female aged 42 born in Malaya, drowned her 2 year old son. There was a background of domestic violence and psychiatric problems. A custody battle was underway with her husband who was violent towards D. D said she could think of no other way to keep V safe, she felt overwhelmed with blackness. A report for the defence favoured DR on the basis of depression. A report for the CPS also favoured DR but diagnosed borderline personality disorder. Ds DR plea was accepted and she was given a 3 year probation order.

Case 77

D, a female aged 36, stabbed her partner, a male aged 43, at their home. D was an alcoholic and both had been drinking heavily. There was a history of domestic violence. D said they argued and that she acted in self defence and was provoked. Three reports all favoured DR on the basis of alcohol dependency syndrome. Ds DR plea was accepted and she was given a 3 year probation order with a residence condition relating to an alcohol project.

Case 78

D, a female aged 61, strangled her mother, aged 91. V had become difficult to deal with and their relationship was strained. D could not explain the offence. Two reports diagnosed psychotic depression and favoured DR. Ds DR plea was accepted and she received a 3 year probation order.

Case 79

D, a female aged 26, stabbed her husband, aged 24, at home. They had an abusive relationship. They argued about Vs glue sniffing. V went to hit D. She picked up a knife and stabbed him once. Two reports favoured DR on the basis of mental handicap. Ds DR plea was accepted and she was given a 3 year probation order with a condition of mental treatment.

Case 80

D, a female aged 30, abandoned her newly born son who died of neglect aged one month. D concealed the pregnancy from her parents as she was afraid. D had attended a school for children with learning problems and had a history of behavioural and personality difficulties. A charge of Infanticide was not appropriate, as there was no evidence that Ds omission was wilful. Two reports favoured DR on the basis of personality disorder and she was given a 3 year probation order.

Case 81 Trial

D, a female aged 14, with a co-accused of the same age, jointly suffocated the elderly V, aged 71, whom they knew. Both Ds had taken drink and drugs. There are no reports on file but reference is made to 2 reports both of which diagnosed PTSD. The report for the defence favoured DR, there are no details on the report for the CPS. After a trial lasting 27 days both Ds were convicted of murder and sentenced to detention for life.

Case 82

D, a male aged 46, stabbed his wife, aged 40. V was in bed. D believed she was having an affair. D had suffered a serious head injury in 1981. Three reports favoured DR no the basis of brain damage and pathological jealousy. Ds DR plea was accepted and he received a sentence of 6 years imprisonment.

Case 83

D, a female aged 52, suffocated her 13 year old son after drugging him. She was found with a plastic bag over her head, intending to kill herself. She had a history of depression. Two reports favoured DR on the basis of depression. Ds DR plea was accepted and she was sentenced to 4 years and 6 months imprisonment.

Case 84

D, a male aged 23, beat his girlfriend, aged 31, to death. He was also charged with the attempted murder of the man she was with. They were all intoxicated and D woke up to find V and the other man in a compromising position. He said he "freaked out" and attacked them both. A report for the CPS found no DR. A report for the defence favoured DR on the basis of personality disorder worsened by the associated increased sensitivity to the effects of intoxicants. Ds DR plea and plea of guilty to s. 18 were accepted. He received a sentence of 6 years imprisonment.

Case 85

D, a male aged 32, beat his mother, aged 70, to death in the belief that she was the devil. He had a psychiatric history. Three reports all favoured DR on the basis of schizophrenia and psychosis. Ds DR plea was accepted and he received a restriction order.

Case 86

D, a male aged 39, stabbed his ex-partner, aged 39. Their relationship was turbulent with some violence. V told D it was finished between them. D went to Vs home to discuss this and thought she was lying to him. He picked up a kitchen knife and she grabbed at it with the result that D stabbed her. A report for the CPS found no DR. A second CPS report and one for the defence both favoured DR on the basis of depression. Ds DR plea was accepted and he received a sentence of 7 years imprisonment.

Case 87

D, a female aged 17, stabbed the man, aged 30, she was living with while he slept. There was a history of domestic violence. D feared V would kill her when he woke up. Vs dismembered body was found later on farmland. Three reports favoured DR on the basis of depression. Ds DR plea was accepted and she was given a 3 year probation order with a condition of mental treatment.

Case 88

D, a male aged 23, shook his 2 month old son. D snapped, as V would not stop crying. A report for the defence favoured DR on the basis of depression. D denied any intent to do GBH. The Crown would not accept this but did accept DR. D was sentenced to a term 2 years and 6 months imprisonment.

Case 89

D, a male aged 29, stabbed his mother, aged 50, at his parents' home. V was asleep and D thought she was the devil. D had a drug problem and had been taking diazepam. Two reports favoured DR on the basis of psychosis influenced by drugs. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 90

D, a male aged 67, bludgeoned his wife, aged 64, to death because he thought they were financially ruined and he had to prevent her facing a bleak future. D had earlier attacked V while suffering from depression. Three reports favoured DR on the basis of depression. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 91

D, a male aged 25, stabbed two friends killing one of them. D had a psychiatric history and said he did it because the Vs both suffered from depression and anxiety and had no quality of life. He wanted to put them out of their misery. Three reports favoured DR on the basis of schizophrenia. Ds DR plea and plea of guilty to attempted murder of the other V were accepted. He was given a restriction order.

Case 92

D, a male aged 24, stabbed V, aged 37, with whom he had been having a homosexual relationship for some time. D confronted V about being coerced into having sex with V, who mocked him. D picked up a knife and stabbed V once in the neck. Three reports favoured DR on the basis of schizophrenia. D had a psychiatric history. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a hospital order.

Case 93 Trial

D, a female aged 32, stabbed V, a female aged 31. They had been having a lesbian relationship for some time. Both had been drinking. V had been flirting with a man. They argued at home. V had a knife and D felt threatened. D got a knife and jabbed out with it stabbing V. Two defence reports favoured DR on the basis of depression. Two CPS reports found no DR. Other defences in issue were lack of intent, self-defence and provocation. A jury convicted D of manslaughter (unspecified) and D was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.

Case 94

D, a male aged 24, suffocated V, a male aged 51. D went back to Vs flat after V had approached him. V was a homosexual. D tied V up and put a plastic bag over his head. D left with Vs chequebook, bankcard and some of his belongings. D had a psychiatric history. There were no reports on file but 2 are referred to without any details. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 95

D, a male aged 41, pushed a male stranger, aged 20, off the platform at railway station under a train. D had a psychiatric history. He thought he was the reincarnation of John the Baptist. Three reports favoured DR on the basis of psychosis. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 96

D, a male aged 34, set fire to the flat in which he lived with his mother, aged 62. She died in the blaze. Two reports favoured DR on the basis of depression and personality disorder. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 97

D, a female aged 25, stabbed her 18 month old daughter and set fire to her flat. D stabbed herself four times intending to kill herself. Two reports favoured DR on the basis of depression. Ds DR plea was accepted and she received a restriction order.

Case 98

D, a male aged 47, stabbed his son-in-law, aged 30. D broke into his daughter and son-in-law's house at night and stabbed V in bed. D had a history of schizophrenia and blamed V for taking his daughter from him. D had stopped taking his medication prior to the offence. There were no reports on file but Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 99

D, a male aged 48, stabbed his female partner, aged 31, at their home. Their relationship was volatile. D had a psychiatric history. V had refused D entry to the house and he had kicked in the door. A report for the Court found no DR. Two reports, one for the defence and one for the CPS favoured DR on the basis of psychosis. Ds DR plea was accepted and he received a term of 9 years imprisonment.

Case 100

D, a male, aged 24, had a fight with V, aged 32, after a party and stamped on his head. D and V knew one another but were not friends. D had been in the army in Bosnia. A report for the Court found no DR. Two other reports favoured DR on the basis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Ds DR plea was accepted and he received a sentence of 6 years imprisonment.

Case 101

D, a male aged 28, hit his female partner, aged 24, repeatedly. D had a history of schizophrenia and believed V was a prostitute and a member of the IRA. Two reports favoured DR on the basis of schizophrenia. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 102

D, a male aged 54, stabbed his landlady, aged 70, after he had tried to kill himself. D said he just 'flipped' as V kept on at him. A report for the defence favoured DR on the basis of alcohol related brain damage. Two reports by the same psychiatrist for the CPS are not on file. In the first the expert was undecided. In the second, after a brain scan carried out on V, it confirmed brain damage. Although the report did not express a concluded view on the degree of impairment, it did not contradict the defence report and implicitly favoured DR. On the day of the start of the trial Ds DR plea was accepted. D received a discretionary life penalty with a tariff of 5 years.

Case 103

D, a male aged 75, stabbed his wife, aged 86, at home after they had both been drinking in the pub. V had become unwell and D said he could no longer cope. D was mentally impaired and had dementia. Three reports all favoured DR on this basis. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a hospital order.

Case 104

D, an Asian male aged 42 born in Kashmir, stabbed his wife, aged 44, daughter, aged 16 and son, aged 18 at home. He believed he had been put under a spell and thought his wife and daughter were having affairs. His son got in the way. Two reports diagnosed schizophrenia and favoured DR. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 105

D, a male aged 37, stabbed his wife, aged 36. V had met someone else thought a chat room on the Internet. She had returned to their house to collect her belongings. A report for the CPS diagnosed acute stress reaction but failed to mention DR. A report for the defence favoured DR on this basis. The file makes clear that the judge was reluctant to permit the DR plea to be accepted, as the reports were unclear as to DR. He asked for more reports. Ds DR plea was eventually accepted and he was given a sentence of 6 years imprisonment.

Case 106

D, a male aged 38, kicked his wife, aged 38, in the head. Both had been drinking heavily and argued. D had a long history of alcoholism. Two reports favoured DR on the basis of alcohol dependency syndrome. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment with a 4 year extended license period.

Case 107

D, a male aged 55, stabbed his wife, aged 52, during an argument over her infidelity. D had a psychiatric history. Three reports favoured DR on the basis of depression. Ds DR plea was accepted and he received a sentence of 4 years imprisonment.

Case 108

D, a male aged 66, strangled his wife, aged 54. V had a psychiatric history and D was trying to have her hospitalised. They argued and V hit D twice, saying "why don't you attack me then I can do you for GBH." D snapped and strangled her. One report for the defence found no DR. Three other reports favoured DR on the basis of depression. Provocation was also an issue. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a suspended sentence for 2 years and a 2 year suspended sentence supervision order.

Case 109

D, a male aged 32, struck V, aged 29, on the head twice with a heavy gas cylinder. They had both been drinking for 3 days. Vs body was found outside Ds flat. D said he was trying to get rid of V who was a nuisance and that V had butted the wall himself. D could not remember hitting V. 2 reports favoured DR on the basis of schizophrenia. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 110

D, a male aged 33, stabbed his wife, aged 28. They were living apart but he expected to be reunited with V. She taunted him about her infidelity and the paternity of the children. They argued and D stabbed V. Two reports for the CPS found no DR but commented on provocation. A third report for the CPS and one for the defence both favoured DR on the basis of depression and provocation. Ds plea of guilty to manslaughter was accepted and he was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment.

Case 111 Trial

D, a male aged 22, kicked V, a male aged 22, to death after V bit off part of Ds ear. D had been living at Vs flat. They both used class A drugs. There were no reports on file but it is clear that DR and provocation were under consideration. D had severe learning difficulties and was partially deaf. After a trial D was convicted of manslaughter and was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment.

Case 112 Trial

D, a male aged 38, hit his partner, aged 35, on the head with an iron bar and strangled her. The couple was separating and V had begun a relationship with another man. D had been drinking heavily. A report for the CPS found no DR. A report for the defence favoured DR on the basis of depression. A jury convicted D of murder and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Case 113 Trial

D, a male aged 27, stabbed V, aged 26, in her car after she had refused to drive off with him. V was a stranger. He then falsely imprisoned and threatened to kill a second female V, also a stranger to him. There were no reports on file on DR. But it is clear that 2 defence reports favoured insanity and DR. A third report for the CPS favoured DR while a fourth also for the CPS was unclear. A jury convicted D of murder and he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a recommendation that he should never be released.

Case 114 Trial

D, a male aged 53, stabbed his neighbour, aged 23, from a downstairs flat. V played very loud music over a period of months. D removed a fuse to stop this. V who was drunk confronted D about this. They argued and D stabbed V. D was convicted of murder in 1966 when he hit a neighbour with a hammer. He was released on life license in 1984. All 3 reports diagnosed personality disorder but 2 considered there was no substantial impairment. Provocation and self defence were also raised. A jury convicted D of DR manslaughter and he was sentenced to a discretionary life penalty with a tariff of 15 years.

Case 115

D, a male aged 29, killed a fellow inmate, aged 35, in the prison cell they were sharing. D in response to voices cut V open while he slept and removed his organs and eyes. D had a long psychiatric history and had been discharged from a secure hospital as untreatable in 1998. An agreed position statement by all 3 psychiatrists was asked for by the trial judge. This diagnosed severe personality disorder arising from all the causes specified in section 2. It favoured DR and recommended a prison sentence. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 116

D, a male from Somalia aged 21, stabbed an associate, aged 23, from whom he bought Khat, a plant chewed for its intoxicating effect. They argued over a transaction and D stabbed V. Three reports diagnosed Khat psychosis. The report for the Court stated that the question of substantial impairment was for the jury. The other 2 reports favoured DR. Ds Dr plea was accepted and he was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.

Case 117

D, a male aged 32, stabbed his mother, aged 65, at their home. D had a psychiatric history. At the time of the offence D said he had to get rid of the 'Y' in her surname. Two reports favoured DR on the basis of schizophrenia. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 118 Trial

D, a female aged 44 from the Punjab, assisted her son to strangle her eldest daughter, aged 29, who was pregnant as a result of a relationship of which the family disapproved. D was also charged with child destruction. A report for the CPS found no DR. A jury convicted D of murder along with her son and she was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Case 119

D, a male aged 50, stabbed his wife, aged 51, whom he believed was involved in pornography. He stabbed V in the kitchen of their home, in a frenzy. D had been receiving medication for depression. Three reports favoured DR on the basis of depression. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a probation order for 3 years with a condition of mental treatment.

Case 120

D, a male aged 30, stabbed a fellow drinker, aged 26, at Ds flat. They were heavily intoxicated and were both alcoholics. D could not remember the offence. A report for the CPS found no DR but agreed with the report for the defence on diagnosis, a combination of mental impairment, depression and alcohol dependence syndrome. These reports were requested at short notice owing to problems with earlier reports. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment.

Case 121

D, a male aged 29, stabbed his elder brother, aged 35, after V had intervened in an argument between D and one of his other brothers about money owed. D had a history of schizophrenia and not taking his medication. Two reports diagnosed schizophrenia. One did not address DR but the one for the defence favoured DR. A third report, not on file, also favoured DR. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order (exceptional circumstances found to avoid an automatic life sentence).

Case 122

D, a male aged 58, shot V, aged 62, twice. They were next door neighbours and D thought V was breaking up his family. D suffered from Huntingdon's chorea. Three Reports favoured DR on this basis. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order. The prosecution was put under pressure by Vs family not to accept the DR plea and D had to be persuaded against pleading not guilty.

Case 123 Trial

D, a male aged 16, stabbed his male friend, aged 16. D suffered from Asperger syndrome. V demanded money, threatened to take Ds playstation which was like the end of the world for D. The only report on file does not address DR. However, a first jury was unable to agree and was discharged on 29/1/2001. At a second trial it is clear that both DR and provocation were pleaded. Four experts for the defence all diagnosed Asperger but two experts for the CPS disagreed. D was convicted of murder and sentenced to detention for life. An appeal on the basis of provocation and DR was lodged.

Case 124

D, a male aged 27, hit his wife, aged 24, with a hammer. They had a violent relationship, argued about drugs and V accused D of having an affair. V came at D with a hammer and D was unable to control his reaction. Two reports favoured DR on the basis of personality disorder. Ds DR plea was only accepted after long negotiations when the judge indicated he would not stand in the way of this. D received a discretionary life penalty with a tariff of 7 years.

Case 125

D, a male aged 36, strangled his wife, aged 45. Two months before the offence D was admitted to hospital as an emergency patient. He believed V was having an affair with his brother. D was discharged 9 days later. He continued to believe V was having an affair and strangled her in bed. Two reports favoured DR on the basis of paranoid psychosis. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order. Ds case resulted in an independent enquiry.

Case 126 Trial

D, a male aged 20, was involved in a street fight which resulted in V, a male aged 17, being stabbed. There were no reports on file. D was convicted by a jury of DR manslaughter and was given a restriction order.

Case 127 Trial

D, a male aged 23, stabbed V, aged 27, in the back. D had given V money to buy drugs but he did not do so. D wanted the money back. They argued. D stabbed V with a knife he had bought for the purpose of confronting V. A report for the CPS was unable to draw conclusions as to DR as D would not discuss the offence. A report for the defence diagnosed depression and favoured DR. At his trial D did not give evidence. The judge told the jury they must decide whether the account he gave to the psychiatrists was a reality. D was convicted of murder and sentence to life imprisonment.

Case 128

D, a male aged 56, stabbed his wife, aged 47, at home. V had left the marital home, which D thought a mortal sin. He wanted to end her human life in order to release her spirit and save her soul. A report for the CPS found no DR. A report for the defence favoured DR on the basis of paranoid psychosis. The CPS sent a copy of the defence report to their psychiatrist who revised his opinion and concluded in favour of DR. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 129

D, a male aged 59, stabbed his mother, aged 86, in both eyes with a screwdriver. D had a psychiatric history. At the time of the offence D said he was convinced that he and his mother were to be killed and that, by killing V, it would be less painful for her. Two reports both favoured DR on the basis of schizophrenia. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 130

D, a male aged 66, hit his wife, aged 49, with a hammer and strangled her using 4 ligatures. The year before the offence he had developed an irrational worry about money problems. D said he could not remember the offence, "he just cracked". Two reports both favoured DR on the basis of depression. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a 3 year probation order.

Case 131 Trial

D, a male aged 26, beat V, aged 59, to death at the hostel where V lived. There are very few details on file. A report for the CPS diagnosed drug and alcohol addiction and personality difficulties but did not address DR. Ds DR plea was not accepted. He was convicted of manslaughter by a jury and was given a discretionary life penalty.

Case 132

D, a male aged 28, shot V, aged 25, twice in a pub car park. V was having an affair with Ds Wife. There were no reports on file and few details. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was sentenced to 9 years imprisonment.

Case 133

D, a female aged 43, stabbed her husband, aged 60. They were both alcoholics and argued after D drove the car while drunk. D said she was going to kill herself and got a knife from the kitchen. They struggled and V was stabbed. Two reports both diagnosed alcohol dependence syndrome and stated that the first drink had been consumed by D involuntarily. Ds DR plea was accepted and she was given a 2 year probation order with a condition of attendance at an alcohol treatment centre.

Case 134

D, a female, aged 30, born in India, set fire to her house in order to kill herself. V, her son, aged 6, died and her 2 other children were rescued. A report for the defence did not address DR. Two other reports, one for the defence and one for the CPS, both favoured DR on the basis of schizophrenia. Ds DR plea was accepted and she was given a hospital order.

Case 135 Trial

D, a male aged 38, stabbed his ex-wife, aged 32. D had a history of depression and he and his wife had separated some time ago. V had started a relationship with another man about which D was jealous. D returned to V's home unexpectedly and found V with the other man. D left but returned and when V opened the door he stabbed her. A report for the defence diagnosed a depressive disorder and concluded that although the question of substantial impairment was "essentially one for the jury..it is possible that his mental responsibility was impaired..". A report for the CPS found no DR. After a trial D was convicted of manslaughter and was sentenced to 9 years imprisonment.

Case 136 Trial

D, a male aged 38, stabbed his wife, aged 35, at home. She wanted a divorce and told him 4 days before. He became depressed and upset. They argued and V said she was leaving. D had a vegetable knife, which he carried, from the kitchen. He stabbed V with it and put his hands round her neck. Two reports diagnosed adjustment disorder. The report for the defence considered there was a basis for a jury to conclude that there was a substantial impairment of mental responsibility. The report for the CPS considered it to be a borderline case, to be answered by a jury. It is unclear from the file what pleas were used by the defence. D was convicted of murder by a jury and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Case 137

D, a male aged 49, born in India, hit his wife, aged 44, with a hammer. V was having an affair which became public knowledge. D said he heard voices telling him to kill V. A report for the court found no DR. An addendum to this report for the CPS diagnosed depression as an abnormality of mind but considered that it was not of sufficient severity to substantially impair Ds responsibility. Two reports for the defence favoured DR on the basis of depression. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a sentence of 3 years imprisonment.

Case 138

D, a black male aged 31, stabbed a fellow resident, aged 40, in a homeless men's hostel. D carried a knife for protection and was afraid of V who had pushed him. A scuffle followed and D stabbed V. Three reports all favoured DR on the basis of schizophrenia. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 139

D, a male aged 48, confronted V, a male aged 52, in the street about an affair he suspected V was having with his wife. D stabbed V. Three reports, 2 for the CPS and one for the defence, all favoured DR on the basis of depression. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 140

D, a male aged 35, born in Turkey, stabbed a prostitute, aged 34, he met and took home. She was asleep at the time. D heard voices instructing him to kill V. D had a history of schizophrenia. Two reports confirmed this diagnosis. Only the report for the defence dealt expressly with DR, favouring it. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 141

D, a male aged 34, beat his mother, aged 66 to death. D had a psychiatric history. They argued about family issues. Two reports both favoured DR on the basis of psychosis. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 142 Trial

D, a male aged 37, stabbed his girlfriend, aged 26, in the street during an argument. Both were alcoholics and heavily intoxicated. A report for the defence diagnosed alcohol dependence syndrome and favoured DR on the basis that D was unable to abstain from drinking and would have had to consume the first drink of the day. A report for the CPS disagreed with this view on the basis that D was able to exercise choice over his drinking. It considered DR a matter for the jury. A third report for the court opined that D's alcoholism was an abnormality of mind due to inherent causes or disease but that the issue of substantial impairment was one for the court to decide. A jury found DR and D was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment.

Case 143

D, a male aged 24, stabbed his male ex-lover, aged 47. D was jealous of Vs new relationship with a female and had tried to break them up with threats. D went to meet V armed with a knife and they argued. A report for the defence favoured DR on the basis of adjustment disorder. It also states that "On the defence of provocation, a very strong case exists". Ds plea of guilty to manslaughter was accepted and he was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment.

Case 144 Trial

D, a male aged 27, stabbed V, a male aged 27, in the Ds cousin's house. D believed V had been spreading rumours about D being a 'nonce'. V had a hammer and D thought he was being threatened. D used a knife he had removed from Vs pocket while he was asleep. A report for the defence favoured DR on the basis of personality disorder and paranoia. A report for the Court disagreed, concluding that there was no personality disorder and that D was voluntarily intoxicated at the time of the offence. A jury convicted D of murder and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Case 145

D, a male aged 66, stabbed his common law wife, aged 73, at home. D had a psychiatric history and had become depressed about financial matters. Two reports both favoured DR on the basis of depression and stress. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a 3 year probation order with a condition of mental treatment.

Case 146

D, a male, aged 44, from India, stabbed V, a female aged 16, while she sunbathed in public. D thought that if he did not kill someone by this date he would be killed. Four reports all favoured DR on the basis of psychosis. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 147 Trial

D, a male aged 19, stabbed a male stranger, aged 23, while crossing a common after a night's drinking. They had become involved in an argument. D said he thought V was behaving in a threatening manner. A report for the defence favoured DR on the basis of depression it also mentioned provocation. Two reports for the CPS disagreed concluding that there was no evidence of abnormality of mind. The jury convicted D of murder and he was sentenced to detention for life.

Case 148

D, a black male aged 31, fatally beat V, aged 72. It was the day of the eclipse and D thought the world would end and that he had to kill or be killed. D had a long psychiatric history. Prior to the fatal assault D stabbed another adult male and one of his sons, aged 12. Two reports both favoured DR on the basis of schizo-affective disorder. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 149

D, a female aged 21, stabbed her male partner, aged 27. Theirs was an abusive relationship and they argued over a plate of chips. One psychiatric report for the CPS found no DR but a second for the court diagnosed 'battered woman syndrome' but also was of the view that "it does not appear that the defendant had, at the material time, an abnormality of mind such that she might be able to offer a defence of diminished responsibility, although I am not going to exclude this confidently on the basis of a single examination." This report also considered that 'battered woman syndrome' might be a characteristic which the jury would be entitled to take into account in considering provocation. A third report for the defence also diagnosed 'battered woman syndrome' but considered that the question of "substantial impairment" was a question for the jury. It also viewed this condition as an enduring "'mental characteristic', which would mark her out from the ordinary woman in such a situation." Ds plea of guilty to common law manslaughter was accepted and she was given a 3 year probation order. The trial judge stated that it was a "wholly exceptional case" giving rise to "a wholly exceptional sentence."

Case 150

D, a male aged 59, strangled his wife, aged 57. V was an in-patient in hospital suffering from severe back pain. Both D and V had long psychiatric histories. D took V to an empty ward and said he strangled her in response to he demands. Two psychiatric reports, one for the defence and one for the court both diagnosed depression and favoured DR. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 151

D, a male aged 45, beat his female partner, aged 41, to death after an argument. Both had a history of alcohol abuse and D had a psychiatric history. D was intoxicated at the time of the offence. Three psychiatric reports diagnosed psychosis and alcohol dependency syndrome. The report for the CPS stated that Ds abnormality of mind "might be said to diminish his responsibility" while the reports for the defence and the Court made it clear that this was a matter for the court or jury to decide. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was sentenced to 54 months imprisonment.

Case 152

D, a male aged 28, fatally stabbed V, aged 62, and attempted to kill V's wife. D said the Freemasons were ordering him to kill someone so he stole a knife and entered Vs house at random. D had a long psychiatric history. Two psychiatric reports, one for the defence and one for the court both diagnosed schizophrenia. Ds DR plea was accepted, as was his plea of guilty to attempted murder. He was given a restriction order.

Case 153

D, a male aged 54, stabbed his wife, aged 46, with a knife he had bought. They had been married for 26 years but V left D six weeks before the offence as a result of marital problems. D had recently been diagnosed with a kidney disorder. They met to discuss their mortgage problems and argued. D stabbed V in the throat. A report for the CPS diagnosed reactive depression but made it clear that it was for the jury to decide if this was a "major factor which led him to kill his wife". Two reports for the defence favoured DR on the basis of depression. Ds DR plea was accepted by the prosecution after the trial had begun and the jury was directed to bring in a formal verdict of DR. He was given a restriction order.

Case 154

D, a male aged 18, stabbed his mother's boyfriend, aged 49. V had been verbally and physically abused by D. A physical altercation took place between them. D picked up a knife he kept in his room for cutting stories out of newspapers and stabbed V with it. Two reports, one for the CPS and one for the defence both favoured DR on the basis of schizophrenia. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a restriction order.

Case 155

D, a male aged 61, stabbed his wife, aged 60. D was cutting meat in the kitchen and V laughed at him. Theirs was a stormy relationship involving domestic violence. D had suffered organic brain damage from a stroke. Two reports, one for the CPS and one for the defence both favoured DR on the basis of acquired brain injury. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was given a 2 year probation order.

Case 156 Trial

D, a male aged 28, fatally stabbed his four year old son. D had a psychiatric history and after the breakdown of his marriage he decided to kill his two children so that they could be together in heaven. D also stabbed his baby daughter, aged eleven months. A single report on file for the defence diagnosed depression but made it clear the issue of "substantial impairment" was a question for the jury. After a trial a jury convicted D of murder and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Case 157

D, a male aged 32, hit his stepfather, aged 58, with a lump hammer. D went to see V after many years absence and was reminded of the serious sexual abuse he had been subjected to by V as a child. A report for the CPS diagnosed borderline personality disorder as an abnormality of mind but made it clear that the issue of "substantial impairment" was a matter for the jury. A report for the defence diagnosed personality disorder but also found post-traumatic stress disorder and favoured DR. Ds DR plea was accepted and he was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.

Ý
Ü Þ

Note 1   Acknowledgments: To the Nuffield Foundation whose generous funding made this research possible. To The Dept. for Constitutional Affairs for authorising the research. To Jacqui O’Riordan and Carole Burry of Records Management Service, The Court Service for their kind and generous help in raising the case files from numerous Crown Courts. Without such assistance research of this type is impossible. To the Home Office for help with homicide statistics. To Leonie Howe and Sarah Scott, both Research Fellows at De Montfort Law School, for their diligent collection of data and to Professor Barry Mitchell of Coventry University, co-director of this research, for his support and collaborative assistance. To David Hughes of the Law Commission’ s Criminal Law Team for helpful comments on earlier drafts     [Back]

Note 2   See R v Dunbar [1958] 1 QB 36.    [Back]

Note 3    [1960] 2 QB 396.    [Back]

Note 4   Ibid. 403.    [Back]

Note 5   Law Commission Consultation Paper No 173.    [Back]

Note 6   See, Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003: Supplementary Volume 1: Homicide and Gun Crime (01/04, January 2004) at Table 1.10.    [Back]

Note 7   S. Dell.Murder into Manslaughter- The Diminished Responsibility Defence in Practice, Oxford University Press, 1984.    [Back]

Note 8   See note 6, ibid. However these statistics are no longer based on a calendar year so one cannot be sure of the precise number of pleas.    [Back]

Note 9   In one case (number 33) D refused to allow DR to be used at his trial and was convicted of murder, see page 12.    [Back]

Note 10   A very brief account of each case is given in an appendix. The cases are numbered 1-157 so as to include all the relevant defendants in the sample. Any reference to a case number in the text can be followed up in the appendix.    [Back]

Note 11   See Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003: Supplementary Volume 1: Homicide and Gun Crime, Chapter 1, Homicide by Judith Cotton at Table 1.09.     [Back]

Note 12   Fiona Brookman and Mike Maguire, Reducing Homicide: Summary of a review of the possibilities, RDS Occasional Paper No 84 (January 2003) at page 1.    [Back]

Note 13   Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003, op. cit.    [Back]

Note 14   Homicide Statistics, op. cit at page 1.     [Back]

Note 15   All three cases of males killing their current or former male sexual partner resulted in pleas of guilty to manslaughter being accepted while the one case (93) of a female killing her female sexual partner resulted in a contested trial.    [Back]

Note 16   The primary diagnosis was the one which an overall analysis of the DR reports in each case seemed to support the plea. Clearly, in some cases there was disagreement over diagnosis. In short the primary diagnosis is based on a cumulative view of the reports in each case.    [Back]

Note 17   They are: “whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury”.    [Back]

Note 18   See in particular R v Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396 and R v Dix (1981) 74 Cr App R 306.    [Back]

Note 19   Disagreements amongst report writers is not something about which any firm conclusions can be drawn owing to the fact that in a number of cases no reports were on the file or alternatively it was clear that some reports were missing.     [Back]

Note 20   Although the total number of murder convictions is 22, this includes case 33 where D refused to allow DR to be used at his trial.     [Back]

Note 21   They are: “whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury”.    [Back]

Ý
Ü   Þ

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/other/EWLC/2004/290(appendix_b).html

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	The Law Commission
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Law Commission >> Partial Defences to Murder (Appendix B) [2004] EWLC 290 (06 August 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/other/EWLC/2004/290(appendix_b).html

	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Percent
spouse	40	25.5	25.5
ex spouse	1	.6	26.1
cohabitant	17	10.8	36.9
ex cohabitant	2	1.3	38.2
lover	4	2.6	40.8
ex lover	3	1.9	42.7
parent, step parent	12	7.6	50.3
son, daughter	13	8.3	58.6
sibling, step sibling	3	1.9	60.5
other family	7	4.5	70.0
friend	14	8.9	73.9
stranger	16	10.2	84.1
other known (acquaintance)	25	15.9	100.0
Total	157	100.0

Venue of offence	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Percent
matrimonial/partner's/family home	71	45.2	45.2
victim's home	31	19.8	65.0
accused's home	12	7.6	72.6
public house	1	.6	73.2
street	18	11.5	84.7
other	24	15.3	100.0
Total	157	100.0

Sentence	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Percent
mandatory life	22	14.0	14.0
discretionary life	12	7.7	21.7
between 7 and 10 years	12	7.6	29.3
between 5 and 7 years	10	6.4	35.7
between 3 and five years	9	5.7	41.4
between 1 and 3 years	5	3.2	44.6
probation/supervision	17	10.8	55.4
fully suspended sentence	2	1.3	56.7
restriction order	62	39.5	96.2
hospital order	6	3.8	100.0
Total	157	100.0