Editing Diminished responsibility (section)

==Scottish law==
Although the term is not used during the proceedings, the 1795 trial of [[Sir Archibald Gordon Kinloch, 7th Baronet|Sir Archibald Gordon Kinloch]] for the murder of his brother Sir Francis Kinloch, 6th baronet of [[Gilmerton]] under [[Robert McQueen, Lord Braxfield]] is one of the earliest clear examples of recognition of diminished responsibility. Whilst found guilty, and usually expecting a death sentence, not only was Kinloch sentenced to life imprisonment instead, but two days after the judgement (17 July 1795) the accused was released into the care of a doctor ([[William Farquharson (surgeon)|William Farquharson]]) on the understanding that Kinloch be kept in a secure environment (the doctor's own house).<ref>The Trial of Sir Archibald Gordon Kinloch for the Murder of Sir Francis Kinloch his Brother-German, 1795</ref>

During the course of the 20th century the courts began to limit the mental conditions falling within diminished responsibility. In ''HM Advocate v Savage''<ref>''HM Advocate v Savage'' (1923) JC 49</ref> [[Lord Alness]] addressed the jury (at 51):

<blockquote>It is very difficult to put it in a phrase, but it has been put in this way: that there must be aberration or weakness of mind; that there must be some form of mental unsoundness; that there must be a state of mind which is bordering on, though not amounting to, insanity; that there must be a mind so affected that responsibility is diminished from full responsibility to partial responsibility. In other words, the prisoner in question must be only partially accountable for his actions. And I think one can see running through the cases that there is implied ... that there must be some form of mental disease.</blockquote>

This statement became the authoritative version of the test for diminished responsibility and the various factors mentioned by Lord Alness were regarded as being cumulative in nature. The effect was that the test became difficult to satisfy, and the courts adopted the position that the scope of the plea was not to be further widened (e.g. ''Carraher v HM Advocate'')<ref>''Carraher v HM Advocate'' (1946) JC 108</ref> held that the plea was not available to a person suffering from psychopathic personality. But in ''Galbraith v HM Advocate''<ref>''Galbraith v HM Advocate'' (2002) JC 1</ref> it was held that the formula in ''Savage'' was not to be read in a narrow sense, and it was not necessary that all the criteria in that formula had to be present. Furthermore, although the plea had to be based on some form of mental abnormality, that condition need not be one bordering on insanity. Instead the court ruled that diminished responsibility required the existence of an abnormality of mind which had the effect that the accused's ability to determine or control his actings was substantially impaired. However, the Court excluded from the scope of the plea:
#any condition brought on by the consumption of drink or drugs, and
#psychopathic personality disorder.

The [[Scottish Law Commission]] reported in 2004 proposing changes to the law on insanity and diminished responsibility.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/download_file/view/231/ |publisher=Scottish Law Commission |title=Report on Insanity and Diminished Responsibility |date=July 2004 |format=PDF}}</ref>