R v Dowds [2012]
Share
R v Dowds [2012] EWCA Crim 281 is an English criminal law case concerning whether voluntary acute intoxication is capable of establishing diminished responsibility.
Dowds was convicted of murdering his partner, whom he killed with a knife by inflicting 60 wounds. He sought to rely on the partial defence of diminished responsibility, claiming that his binge drinking and acute intoxication at the time of the killing constituted a recognised medical condition under the amended provisions of the Homicide Act 1957.
The trial judge ruled that voluntary and temporary drunkenness was not a basis for the defence of diminished responsibility. Dowds appealed, arguing that acute intoxication is a medically recognised condition and should satisfy the statutory requirements.
The appeal was dismissed. The court held that voluntary acute intoxication, by itself, cannot establish a partial defence of diminished responsibility to manslaughter. The amendment to S2(1) Homicide Act 1957 by S52(1) Coroners and Justice Act 2009 was not intended to change the established practice of law regarding voluntary intoxication as a partial defence.
The court ruled that the introduction of the term "recognised medical condition" was not intended to alter the law on voluntary intoxication. Instead, it was introduced in response to developments in medicine and psychiatry. There was no explicit intention by Parliament to deviate from the established legal position regarding voluntary intoxication.
In summary, this case affirmed that voluntary acute intoxication, even if it leads to a recognised medical condition, cannot be the sole basis for establishing diminished responsibility as a partial defence to manslaughter.
Dowds was convicted of murdering his partner, whom he killed with a knife by inflicting 60 wounds. He sought to rely on the partial defence of diminished responsibility, claiming that his binge drinking and acute intoxication at the time of the killing constituted a recognised medical condition under the amended provisions of the Homicide Act 1957.
The trial judge ruled that voluntary and temporary drunkenness was not a basis for the defence of diminished responsibility. Dowds appealed, arguing that acute intoxication is a medically recognised condition and should satisfy the statutory requirements.
The appeal was dismissed. The court held that voluntary acute intoxication, by itself, cannot establish a partial defence of diminished responsibility to manslaughter. The amendment to S2(1) Homicide Act 1957 by S52(1) Coroners and Justice Act 2009 was not intended to change the established practice of law regarding voluntary intoxication as a partial defence.
The court ruled that the introduction of the term "recognised medical condition" was not intended to alter the law on voluntary intoxication. Instead, it was introduced in response to developments in medicine and psychiatry. There was no explicit intention by Parliament to deviate from the established legal position regarding voluntary intoxication.
In summary, this case affirmed that voluntary acute intoxication, even if it leads to a recognised medical condition, cannot be the sole basis for establishing diminished responsibility as a partial defence to manslaughter.
