Diminshed Responsibility and Intoxication

Diminshed Responsibility and Intoxication

1. Intoxication alone cannot support a defence of diminished responsibility.

   • This is shown in the case of Dowdes.

2. If the jury decide that the D was not suffering from an abnormaility of mental functioning, the defence of diminshed responsibility is not available.

3. There are difficulties in cases where the defendant has some abnormaility of mental functioning but, in addition, is intoxicated at the time of the kiling.

   • This occured in Dietschmann
     • Ths House of Lords held that if the defendant staisfied the jury that his abnormality of mind substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts in doing the killing, then even though he was intoxcated, the jury should find him guilty of manslaughter.
       • The C.O.A also considered the point in a number of cases after.
         • Hendy where D was intoxicated but there was evidence of underlying brain damage and psychopathic disorder.
         • Robson where D was heavily intoxicated, but also suffering from an accute stress disorder when he killed V.
   • The modern apporach is likely to be that the jury must decide:
     • if D has an abnormailty of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition
     • whether the abnormality substantially impaired D's ability to understand the nature of his conduct of form a rational judgement and/or exercise self control.
     • whether the abnormality caused, of was a significant factor in causing, D to kill V.

4. There is a recognised medical condition called Alcohol Dependency Syndrome (ADS). This means that a person cannot control their drinking.

   • Under the old law in Tandy, the C.O.A held that where the D is unable to resist drinking, so that it is involuntary, this could amount to diminished responsibility.
     • The decision was criticised as it only looked at whether the D was unable to prevent themselves from drinking. It did not consider whether alcoholism is a disease.
     • When hearing the appeal in Wood, the C.O.A. considered the effect of the judgement in Dietschmann on the decision in Tandy. They held that Alcohol Dependency Syndrome coud be considered as a possible source of abnormality of mind (now mental functioning.)
       • This was for the jury to decide. If the jury found that it was an abnormality of mind, then they had to consider the effect of any alcohol consumed by the D as a result of his dependency.
   • The issue was considered again in Stewart, when the C.O.A. set out a three part test for juries in such cases to consider:
     • 1)Was D sufferring from an abnormality of mental functioning? They pointed out that the mere fact that D has ADS would not automatically amount to a abnormality. The nature and the extent of the ADS had to be considered.
     • 2) If so, was D's abnormaility caused by the ADS?
     • 3)If so, was D's mental responsibility substantially inpaired? To decide this, all the evidence, including the medical evidence, should be considered. This would involve such matters as the extent and seriousness of D's dependency and the extent to which he could control his drinking.