Diminished responsibility and intoxication

Question 1

When does the defence of diminished responsibility become more complicated?

Answer 1

when the defendant was also intoxicated at the time of the killing

Question 2

What is the first point regarding diminished responsibility and intoxication?

Answer 2

that there is a clear rule that intoxication alone cannot support a defence of diminished responsibility.

Question 3

What case shows that the clear rule that intoxication alone cannot support a defence of diminished responsibility is still the position of courts today?

Answer 3

Dowds 2012

Question 4

What happened in the case of Dowds 2012?

Answer 4

D and his girlfriend, V were binge drinkers. D stabbed V when drunk 60 times and killed her. His conviction for murder was upheld on the basis that voluntary acute intoxication is not capable of founding the defence of diminished responsibility

Question 5

D and his girlfriend, V were binge drinkers. D stabbed V when drunk 60 times and killed her. His conviction for murder was upheld on the basis that voluntary acute intoxication is not capable of founding the defence of diminished responsibility
What case is this?

Answer 5

Dowds 2012

Question 6

Why did the COA in Dowds 2012 maintain the rule of intoxication under the Homicide Act 1957?

Answer 6

as they stated that if parliament had meant to change the law then they would have been amendments under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Question 7

In a case where diminished responsibility is not given as a defence and the prosecution prove that D did the act of killing and had the mens rea for murder, what can prevent a murder conviction?

Answer 7

another defence such as self defence

martin anthony

Question 8

Which case is an example of where there are difficulties when the defendant has some abnormality of mental functioning and is intoxicated at the time of the killing?

Answer 8

Dietschmann 2003

Question 9

What happened in the case of Dietchmann 2003?

Answer 9

D killed V by repeatedly hitting and stamping on V. Psychiatric’s agreed that the defendant was suffering from an adjustment disorder in the form of depressed grief reaction to the death of his aunt. D’s conviction of murder was substituted for manslaughter after there was consideration of whether this adjustment disorder impaired his mental responsibility for this killing; which it was.

Question 10

D killed V by repeatedly hitting and stamping on V. Psychiatric’s agreed that the defendant was suffering from an adjustment disorder in the form of depressed grief reaction to the death of his aunt. D’s conviction of murder was substituted for manslaughter after there was consideration of whether this adjustment disorder impaired his mental responsibility for this killing; which it was.
What case is this?

Answer 10

Dietschmann 2003

Question 11

What did the HOL hold in Dietschmann? 2003

Answer 11

That if the jury were satisfied that D’s abnormality of mental functioning impaired his mental responsibility for his acts in doing the killing, then even though he was intoxicated, the jury should not find him guilty of murder, but for manslaughter

Question 12

Which 2 cases after Dietschmann 2003 did the COA consider the point made by the HOL?

Answer 12

Hendy 2006

Robson 2006

Question 13

What were the material facts of Hendy 2006?

Answer 13

D was intoxicated but there was evidence of underlying brain damage and a psychopathic disorder which meant he was convicted of manslaughter on appeal

Question 14

What were the material facts of Robson 2006?

Answer 14

D was heavily intoxicated but also suffering from an acute stress disorder when he killed V. Murder was substituted for manslaughter under the rules of Dietschmann 2003

Question 15

What would be the modern approach to deciding whether D would have a defence of diminished responsibility?

Answer 15

• does D have an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a medical condition
• did this abnormality substantially impair D’s ability to understand the nature of his conduct to form a rational judgement
• did D’s abnormality cause, or was a significant factor in causing D to kill V >

Question 16

Under what 3 circumstances would D not have the defence of DR?

Answer 16

• If the jury decide that D did not have an abnormality of mental functioning
• if the abnormality was not caused by a recognised medical condition
• if the abnormality was not a significant factor in causing D to do the killing

Question 17

What is ADS?

Answer 17

Alcohol Dependancy Syndrome

Question 18

What is the recognised medical condition for when a person cannot control their drinking?

Answer 18

ADS (Alcohol Dependancy Syndrome)

Question 19

In what case under the old law did the COA hold that where the defendant is unable to resist drinking, so that it is involuntary, this could amount to DR?

Answer 19

Tandy 1989

Question 20

What happened in the case of Tandy 1989?

Answer 20

D was an alcoholic who after finding out her husband sexually interfered with her daughter, strangled her. Her conviction for murder was upheld as the COA held that she had not shown her brain had been injured or that her drinking was involuntary.
Decision was criticised as it did not consider that alcoholism is a disease

Question 21

D was an alcoholic who after finding out her husband sexually interfered with her daughter, strangled her. Her conviction for murder was upheld as the COA held that she had not shown her brain had been injured or that her drinking was involuntary.
Decision was criticised as it did not consider that alcoholism is a disease
What case is this?

Answer 21

Tandy 1983

Question 22

What did the COA point out in Wood 2008 against Tandy 1983?

Answer 22

that the sharp effect of the distinction drawn in Tandy between cases where brain damage had occurred from ADS and those where it had not, was no longer appropriate

Question 23

What happened in the case of Wood 2008?

Answer 23

D after heavy drinking went to Vs flat where he fell asleep, awoken by V trying to perform oral sex on him. D hit V with a meat clever, killing him. D suffered from ADS. The murder conviction was quashed after the COA held it was wrong for the trial judge to suggest that all of Ds drinking had to be involuntary, saying that drinking alcohol while giving into a craving is not an involuntary act

Question 24

D after heavy drinking went to Vs flat where he fell asleep, awoken by V trying to perform oral sex on him. D hit V with a meat clever, killing him. Medical expert agreed that D was suffering from ADS but did not agree that this damaged his brain. The murder conviction was quashed after the COA held it was wrong for the trial judge to suggest that all of Ds drinking had to be involuntary, saying that drinking alcohol while giving into a craving is not an involuntary act
What case is this?

Answer 24

Wood 2008

Question 25

When the jury was given the decision as to whether or not ADS was an abnormality of mind, what 2 questions did this involve?

Answer 25

• questions as to whether Ds craving for alcohol was or was not irresistible
• whether his consumption of alcohol in the period leading up to the killing was voluntary, and if so, to what extent

Question 26

In what case did the COA set out a 3 stage test for juries to decide in cases of intoxication due to addiction/dependancy

Answer 26

Stewart 2009

Question 27

What happened in the case of Stewart 2009?

Answer 27

D killed V in the course of a fight. D was a chronic alcoholic. Conviction substituted for manslaughter after a misdirection following Wood 2008 which held that the drinking had to be wholly involuntary.

Question 28

D killed V in the course of a fight. D was a chronic alcoholic. Conviction substituted for manslaughter after a misdirection following Wood 2008 which held that the drinking had to be wholly involuntary.
What case is this?

Answer 28

Stewart 2009

Question 29

What was the three stage test for juries in cases of intoxication due to addiction/dependancy in the case of Stewart 2008?

Answer 29

1) Was D suffering from an abnormality of mind (now mental functioning) The mere fact that D has ADS would not automatically amount to an abnormality. The nature and extent of ADS had to be considered
2) If so, was D’s abnormality caused by ADS
3) If so, was Ds mental responsibility substantially impaired? This would involve medical evidence and the extent and seriousness of Ds dependancy and the extent to which he could control this dependancy

Question 30

1) Was D suffering from an abnormality of mind (now mental functioning) The mere fact that D has ADS would not automatically amount to an abnormality. The nature and extent of ADS had to be considered
2) If so, was D’s abnormality caused by ADS
3) If so, was Ds mental responsibility substantially impaired? This would involve medical evidence and the extent and seriousness of Ds dependancy and the extent to which he could control this dependancy

What is this?

Answer 30

this is the 3 stages test for juries in cases of intoxication due to addiction/dependancy in the case of Stewart 2009

Question 31

as well as the three stage test under the case of Stewart 2009, under the new law of s52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, what else does the jury need to decide?

Answer 31

whether or not the abnormality caused or was a significant factor in causing D to kill V

Question 32

What was the ratio of Dowds 2012 for the effect of intoxication?

Answer 32

Transient (short term) effect of drink and drugs on brain cannot found the defence diminished responsibility

Question 33

What was the ratio of Dietchmann 2003?

Answer 33

Where the defendant has a pre existing mental disorder, intoxication does not prevent him using the defence, the abnormality of mental functioning does not have to be the sole cause of D doing the killing

Question 34

What was the ratio of Wood 2008?

Answer 34

ADS can be an abnormality of mental functioning

Question 35

What section of the Homicide Act 1957 said that the burden of proof is on the defendant?

Answer 35

s2 (2)

Question 36

what is the effect of the defence of DR undef the Homicide Act 1957?

Answer 36

s2(3)