R v Golds
In diminished responsibility, substantially impaired means a significant or appreciable impairment, not merely one that is more than trivial.
Facts
Mr Golds stabbed his partner to death in a frenzied attack during an argument. He relied on the defence of diminished responsibility, and there was medical evidence that he was suffering from a mental disorder. The issue was how the jury should be directed on the requirement in section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, as amended, that the abnormality of mental functioning must have substantially impaired his ability to understand his conduct, form a rational judgment or exercise self control.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held that the judge should normally not try to define substantially for the jury, because it is an ordinary English word. If the jury needs help, the judge should explain that it means significant or appreciable, not merely more than trivial or minimal. Lord Hughes said that the impairment must be substantial, and the jury must decide whether it was, taking into account all the evidence. The court also held that the prosecution may accept a plea of guilty to manslaughter where the medical evidence of diminished responsibility is uncontradicted, but that it is not obliged to do so.
Related cases on murder and voluntary manslaughter
- Attorney General for Jersey v Holley [2005] UKPC 23, [2005] 2 AC 580
- R v Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889
- R v Asmelash [2013] EWCA Crim 157, [2014] QB 103
- R v Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396
- R v Challen [2019] EWCA Crim 916
- R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2, [2013] QB 1
- R v Dawes; R v Hatter; R v Bowyer [2013] EWCA Crim 322, [2014] 1 WLR 947
- R v Dietschmann [2003] UKHL 10, [2003] 1 AC 1209
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
