Facts: The defendant was drunk when he killed the victim. Medics said that he had a “depressed tried reaction”; in other words, he was depressed following the death of his aunt.

Held: The court held that it is possible to use the defence of diminished responsibility even though he was drunk, as long as the media condition was the substantial cause of what he did. Although this case was decided under the old law (pre-2009) it seems likely the outcome of this case would be the same today.

⇒ See the topic notes on diminished responsibility here.

Facts: The appellant, a 49 year old college lecturer, killed his partner in a frenzied knife attack whilst he was heavily intoxicated. Both he and his partner were habitual binge drinkers and there had been numerous violent exchanges between the couple, most of which had been initiated by her and most occurred whilst they were intoxicated. He reported her death to the police two days after the killing and claimed that he had no recollection of the events but accepted that he had killed her. He did not assert that he was alcohol dependant; he could exercise choice over when he drank and would not drink during the week, however, once he had started drinking he was unable to stop. The trial judge ruled that his voluntary and temporary drunkenness was not capable of founding the defence of diminished responsibility. The appellant appealed contending that the World Health Organisation lists acute intoxication in its International Classification of Disease and it was therefore a medically recognised condition and thus satisfied the requirement in s.2(1)(a) Homicide Act 1957 as amended by s.52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

Held: Appeal dismissed. Voluntary acute intoxication, whether from alcohol or other substance, is not capable of founding diminished responsibility.

⇒ See the topic notes on diminished responsibility here.

Facts: The defendant killed his cousin because his wife was having an affair with him. At his murder trial he relied on the defence of diminished responsibility. He was convicted of murder. D appealed on the basis that the jury had not been given a definition of “substantial” within the definition of ‘diminished responsibility’.

⇒ Definition of diminished responsibility: The defendant must show that he/she suffered from an abnormality of mental functioning, arising from a recognised medical condition, which provides an explanation for committing the killing. It must be shown that the abnormality substantially impaired his/her ability to understand the nature of his/her conduct, form a rational judgment, and exercise self-control.

Held: Lord Judge CJ said that “the jury must decide for itself” whether the defendant’s impairment was substantial.

⇒ See the topic notes on diminished responsibility here.

Facts: The appellant was a chronic alcoholic sleeping rough. One time when drunk he killed a man. He raised the defence of diminished responsibility. The jury rejected the defence and convicted him of murder. He appealed.

Held: The appeal was allowed. Lord Judge CJ said that in such cases the jury should consider “the extent and seriousness of the defendant’s dependency”, whether D’s “ability to control his drinking or to choose whether to drink or not, was reduced”, whether he could abstain from drinking, and whether D was drinking more than usual because it was a special occasion. Although this case is decided under the old law it is likely a similar approach would be followed under the current law.

⇒ See the topic notes on diminished responsibility here.

Facts: The defendant (D) killed his wife (V) after suspecting her of having an affair. At the defendant’s trial for murder he raised evidence to suggest he suffered from 'Othello Syndrome’, which involves extreme feelings of jealousy without any real foundation.

Held: CONTD's plea was successful and got 7 years manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. However, in the Court of Appeal, Lord Lawton was unhappy with the verdict referring to D's evidence as 'flimsy' and incredibly unfair on the victim.

⇒ See the topic notes on diminished responsibility here.