The defendant was convicted of murder. He claimed diminished responsibility arising from a disorder, being either according to one psychiatrist, arising from alcohol dependence syndrome, or according to another, a depressed grief reaction. The substantial issue related to the judge’s directions on the alcohol dependence. The defendant did not suggest he had a craving: his evidence was that he had drunk rather less than usual. Accordingly, the evidence was not capable of establishing alcohol dependence syndrome as being an abnormality of mind within the section.
Rose LJ summarised the law: ‘The general rule that drink does not give rise to an abnormality of mind due to inherent causes was authoritatively established in R v Fenton (1975) 61 Cr. App. R. 261 and confirmed in R v Gittens (1984) 79 Cr. App. R. 272 [1984] QB 698. In line with those authorities, R v Tandy (1988) 87 Cr. App. R. 45 established that drink is only capable of giving rise to a defence under section 2 if it either causes damage to the brain or produces an irresistible craving so that consumption is involuntary.”
Judges:
Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Bell
Citations:
[2001] EWCA Crim 2052
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Fenton, Regina v 1975
The defendant had shot four people in two different locations. He suffered a number of conditions, including paranoid psychopathy, which raised the possibility of diminished responsibility, although the jury had rejected that defence. He now . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Regina v Dietschmann HL 27-Feb-2003
Voluntary drunkenness No Diminished Responsibility
The defendant had been convicted of murder. At the time of the assault, he was both intoxicated to the point of losing his inhibitions and was also suffering an abnormality of mind sufficient substantially to reduce his mental responsibility.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.166233
