R v Golds [2016] UKSC 61

Court: Supreme Court

Facts: D killed his partner and claimed diminished responsibility due to a mental disorder.

Issue : was he under the influence of a psychotic condition at the time of the incident, thereby meeting the criteria for the partial defence of diminished responsibility under section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957?

Held: The jury must have a rational basis for rejecting expert medical evidence on the impairment of D's abilities. "Substantial" means more than minimal but does not necessarily mean total.

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Hughes clarified, "The impairment must be substantial, meaning more than trivial but it need not be total."

💡Leveluplaw : important case for the concept of diminished responsibility in criminal law. It highlights the necessity for abnormal mental functioning to significantly impair the defendant's mental capacities, which can justify reducing the charge from murder to manslaughter