A case for diminished responsibility in Maltese law

Abstract

The level of intent used in the commission of wilful homicide classifies it as, the fastigium of offences in relation to physical violence. Correct sentencing is vital in this regard; therefore as demonstrated throughout this study it is necessary to assess all parameters of the accused’s acts, where prominence should be placed on the possibility of an abnormality of the mind. The diminished responsibility defence is not set to exculpate the defendant from obtaining a sentence. Hence, to the contrary this defence ensures that a sentence is met to punish the acts committed; whilst taking the mental impairment of the accused into account. The McNaughton rules test applied under Maltese legislation may be classified as a vieux jeu; where its narrowness implores a need for change. A comprehensive analysis of the diminished responsibility defence has been assessed in this study; where the basic requisites of the crime have been expounded on. Attention has also been sought to distinguish the contrasting features, adopted by various jurisdictions. Emphasis is further placed on the principles and methods applied in case law to fortify this defence. The Maltese criminal code has been carefully scrutinized; to cater for a possibility of this defence and to also assess, whether an indirect application of this defence could be applied. The logic behind ‘A case for diminished responsibility in Maltese law’ is set to amplify our current wilful homicide sections, by the recognition of diminished responsibility as a partial defence. With the introduction of such a defence, a balance would be reached between the element of fairness and the enforcement of justice.