Please do not cite from this paper without the author’s permission Diminished Responsibility in Golds and Beyond: Insights and Implications Matthew Gibson  Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Liverpool In Golds, the United Kingdom Supreme Court recently reviewed the meaning of “substantially impaired” in the reformed diminished responsibility plea. This article assesses the significance of that decision. In doing so, it not only provides insights into the Supreme Court’s findings on “substantially impaired”, but also highlights broader implications of the judgment. Such implications relate to the future interpretation of diminished responsibility and, more generally, the role of partial defences to murder. 1. Introduction A number of recent cases have sought to interpret elements of the reformed English diminished responsibility plea. In doing so, they have provided new perspectives on how those elements must be satisfied. One of these cases, Golds, 1 is particularly noteworthy as it represents the United Kingdom Supreme Court’s (UKSC) first foray into the revised partial defence. Following Golds, the other relevant cases comprise Squelch, 2 Conroy 3 – both heard in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (CACD) – and Blackman, 4 heard in the Court Martial Appeal Court (CMAC).  Senior Lecturer in Law, Liverpool Law School, University of Liverpool: m.j.r.gibson@liverpool.ac.uk . I am grateful to Thomas Horsley and David Ormerod for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. The usual proviso applies. 1 [2016] UKSC 61. 2 [2017] EWCA Crim 204. 3 [2017] EWCA Crim 81. 4 [2017] EWCA Crim 190. 1