| Summary: | It is now over twenty years since the criminal trials of two women caught the attention of the British media. Sandra Craddock (later Smith) and Christine English both raised a successful defence of diminished responsibility based on premenstrual syndrome to a murder charge. In these cases the Court of Appeal apparently determined that PMS is a factor that can limit criminal responsibility. Although this thesis concentrates on the situation as it exists in English law, many of its conclusions are equally relevant to other legal systems, particularly those in common law jurisdictions. === The issues that are likely to arise in a criminal trial in which a defendant wishes to base a substantive defence on premenstrual syndrome can be condensed into five central questions: (i) Does premenstrual syndrome exist at all? (ii) If so, does the defendant suffer from the condition? (iii) Did PMS cause or contribute to the defendant's actions? (iv) If the answer to (iii) is yes, should the act be excused? (v) If so, under what category of excuse? This thesis will discuss the way in which these questions might best be approached. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
|
|---|
