TNAG-0604-FCO40-752-Capital-punishment-in-Dependent-Territories-1977 — Page 159

-116-

that it was due to a blackout, blankness, it may be that

his mind was off, by reason of disease of the mind.

Members of the Jury, I don't think the psychiatrist

indicated to you if mental retardation is really a disease

of the mind. But he says it's possible he may have had

some brain injury and this could result in mental retardation.

That's only a possibility. He hasn't given precisely if

there is any real disease of the mind. If there is a defect

in his mind, the defect was the mental retardation.

5

However,

in my view the two defences stand or fall on those facts.

The other defence of diminished responsibility I will

consider now.

Diminished responsibility Members of the Jury, is

10

another aspect of abnormality of the mind. You can have it

in a case of mental retardation. So you will have to look 15

at the evidence, look at the accused because you too have

to assess him. Not only the psychiatrist. You too have

to assess him to see if his mental retardation has produced

such an abnormality of the mind as to put him in a position where

he : would not be able to have the necessary intent to

complete the offence of murder, because the offence of

murder requires the malice aforethought, the intention

to kill or to do grievous bodily harm. If that abnormality,

is that mental retardation is such that it would deprive

him of the required criminal intent to be able to satisfy

the offence of murder, then Members of the Jury, you will

have to say that the accused may have killed unlawfully

but he did not have the necessary malice, and so the

offence will have to be that of manslaughter. You will

remember Counsel for the accused addressed you very

forcefully. I think you can remember when he exclaimed

20

25

30