Diminished responsibility and intoxication Flashcards
When does the defence of diminished responsibility become more complicated?
when the defendant was also intoxicated at the time of the killing
What is the first point regarding diminished responsibility and intoxication?
that there is a clear rule that intoxication alone cannot support a defence of diminished responsibility.
What case shows that the clear rule that intoxication alone cannot support a defence of diminished responsibility is still the position of courts today?
Dowds 2012
What happened in the case of Dowds 2012?
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
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?
Dowds 2012
Why did the COA in Dowds 2012 maintain the rule of intoxication under the Homicide Act 1957?
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
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?
another defence such as self defence
martin anthony
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?
Dietschmann 2003
What happened in the case of Dietchmann 2003?
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.
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?
Dietschmann 2003
What did the HOL hold in Dietschmann? 2003
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
Which 2 cases after Dietschmann 2003 did the COA consider the point made by the HOL?
Hendy 2006
Robson 2006
What were the material facts of Hendy 2006?
D was intoxicated but there was evidence of underlying brain damage and a psychopathic disorder which meant he was convicted of manslaughter on appeal
What were the material facts of Robson 2006?
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
What would be the modern approach to deciding whether D would have a defence of diminished responsibility?
- 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 >