How the Law Changes - Part 2

This is the second in a series articles considering how the Government reforms the law by passing a Bill through Parliament. You may recall from Part 1 of this series that murder carries a mandatory life sentence and that the defences of provocation and diminished responsibility exist to reduce to a manslaughter conviction what would otherwise be murder. This provides a 'safety valve' for the sentencing judge because it allows the judge to impose a less onerous sentence if they so wish. In part 1 of this series, I considered the current defence of provocation and the proposed replacement defence of loss of control. In this article, I will examine the current defence of diminished responsibility and the proposed replacement. I will examine the law against the case of Kiranjit Ahluwalia in order to explain the differences between the current law and the proposed new law.

 

As you may recall from the first article in this series, Mrs Ahluwalia suffered domestic violence at the hands of her husband during the 1980s. She received various injuries over the years and could provide a wealth of evidence to support her claims of domestic violence. In March 1989, her husband was having an affair with a female work colleague and he taunted Ahluwalia about the relationship. In May 1989, Ahluwalia's husband informed her that the marriage was over and he was leaving her. He also demanded £200 in order to pay a telephone bill and threatened to beat her in the morning if she could not provide the money by then. A few days before this, Ahluwalia had bought some caustic soda with a view to using it upon her husband. She also brought a can of petrol. During the night, Ahluwalia poured about 2 pints of the petrol into a bucket, lit a candle on the gas cooker and carried these things to the bedroom where her husband was sleeping. She was wearing an oven glove for protection and carrying a stick. She threw the petrol into the bedroom, lit the stick from the candle and threw it into the room. Her husband suffered significant burns and died several days later. At her trial for murder, she claimed the  defence of provocation but was unsuccessful because her loss of self control was not sudden. She therefore received a mandatory life sentence. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the conviction for murder was quashed and a re-trial ordered. This was because the appeal judges decided that Ahluwalia might be able to claim diminished responsibility on the basis that she was suffering from battered wife syndrome. When the matter returned to the Crown Court for trial, the prosecution accepted a guilty plea to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Ahluwalia was sentenced to a period of imprisonment but released immediately due to time she had served since her first trial.

 

Diminished responsibility became a defence to murder in 1957 and still stands as the law on this area. However, the Coroners and Justice Bill includes proposals to amend the defence of diminished responsibility.

 

The current law states that a person who kills another person when suffering from an abnormality of their mind which causes them to suffer from substantially impaired mental responsibility for their acts or omissions should be convicted of manslaughter rather than murder.

In the case of Ahluwalia, it was accepted that battered wife syndrome, which is now a recognised mental condition of learnt helplessness where somebody suffers domestic violence over a period of time, was an abnormality of mind. It was accepted by the prosecution that the fact that Ahluwalia was suffering from battered wife syndrome substantially impaired her mental responsibility for the killing of her husband.

 

Under the Government proposals, the accused would have to suffer an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition. In the case of Ahluwalia, this requirement would have been satisfied because she was suffering from battered wife syndrome. The Government proposals also require the accused's ability to understand the nature of their conduct or form a rational judgement or exercise self control to be substantially impaired. In the case of Ahluwalia, at least one of these requirements would have been met because there was substantial impairment to her ability to exercise self control because she suffered from battered wife syndrome. Arguably, she was also unable to form a rational judgement.

 

It is interesting that the committee of MPs who are considering the Government's proposals have suggested an amendment to them allowing diminished responsibility to be claimed by an accused even if the abnormality of mental functioning was suffered by the victim rather than the accused. I must question the sense of this suggested amendment to the proposals. It is difficult to see how the victim suffering from a recognised medical condition causing an abnormality of the victim's mental functioning can justify the accused not being convicted of murder but instead being convicted of manslaughter. If anything, the likely vulnerability of the victim would make the offence even more serious for the purpose of sentencing.

 

The Coroners and Justice Bill is still being considered by a committee of MPs and will then return to the House of Commons for consideration and a final vote. It will be at this stage that we will see whether the amendments to the Government's proposals are agreed. The Bill will then go to the House of Lords for further consideration and approval.
 

In the third part of this series of articles, I will update you once the Bill has been approved by the House of Commons and is going to the House of Lords. 

If you require advice or have any queries please do not hesitate to contact Jeremy Scott on 01904 610886 or email jeremy.scott@langleys.com.