Book Review: The Future of the Diminished Responsibility Defence to Murder
| Author | Faye Boland |
| Published date | 01 August 2001 |
| Date | 01 August 2001 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201830106500410 |
| Subject Matter | Book Review |
BOOI( REVIEW
ProfessorE. E. Tennant, The Future
of
the Diminished
Responsibility Defence to Murder (Barry Rose
Law
Publishers:
Chichester,
200
I) Hardback: 375 pp. £43
This
book
contains
the
outcome
of empirical research
into
222
cases
where
the
diminished responsibility plea was successful
between
1
June
1979
and
31 October 1981. Following
examination
of
the
case files,
Professor
Tennant
aims to assess
the
proximity of
the
case disposals to
the
then
currently
active
Court
of Appeal Practice
Summary
on
dimin-
ished responsibility case disposals,
any
other
appropriate
guidelines on
sentencing, practice directions given by
the
Lord Chief Justice of
the
day
and
Court
of Appeal precedents. The
text
begins
with
an
overview
of
the
historical
development
of
the
diminished
responsibility defence, of
the
operation
of
the
diminished
responsibility defence in practice
and
of
the
disposal
options
applicable to
adult
and
young
diminished respon-
sibility
manslaughterers.
Most of
the
rest of
the
book
is
then
devoted
to
the
writer's empirical research.
There
are
a
number
of tables, for
exam-
ple, relating
the
defendant's
violent/non-violent
criminal history to
disposal
outcome
and
relating diagnosis to disposal
outcome.
The
author
explores
commonality
of factors
within
the
mental
illness
and
person-
ality disorder
groups
(and
also
within
subgroups
of these) via extensive
case studies
and
he relates
these
to disposal
outcome.
A
lengthy
explora-
tion is provided of
why
case disposals
have
occasionally
departed
from
the
guidelines
on
sentencing
and
particular
attention
is
devoted
to
disposal of
the
psychopath.
The
author
concludes
with
arguments
for
retention
of
the
defence in
the
event
of abolition of
the
mandatory
life
sentence.
As
noted
by The Rt Hon. Sir Frederick
Lawton
in his foreword to
the
book,
'the
Professor writes attractively'. The
author's
free-flowing style
renders
the
information
easily digestible. However, this
can
occasionally
be at
the
expense
of
thoroughness.
The
author's
discussion of
the
history
of
the
diminished responsibility defence fails
even
to
mention
the
Re-
port
of
the
Heald Committee,
Murder:
Some
Suggestions
forthe
Reform
ofthe
Law
Relating
toMurderin England,
which
recommended
the
adoption
of
diminished responsibility as a defence in 1956.
The
author's
discussion of alcohol
and/or
drugs
combined
with
ab-
normality
of
mind
on
p. 60 is so superficial as to provide no indication of
the
ratio
of
the
Court
of Appeal's decision in
Gittens
(1984) 79 Cr App R
272.
This is
then
incorrectly stated at pp.
251-2.
In
both
instances
the
author
cites
Gittens
as
'the
authority'
on
this
area
of
the
law. However,
the
law
on
this
area
is actually derived from Professor Smith's
commen-
tary
on
Gittens,
approved
in Atkinson [1985] Crim LR 314
and
confirmed
in Egan (1992) 95 Cr App R 278.
360
To continue reading
Request your trial