R v Dietschmann
A defendant who was intoxicated and also suffered from an abnormality of mind can rely on diminished responsibility if the abnormality substantially impaired his responsibility, even without the drink.
Facts
Mr Dietschmann was suffering from a depressed grief reaction, an abnormality of mind, after the death of his aunt, with whom he had been in a relationship. One night, after drinking heavily, he believed that another man had broken his watch, which had been a present from his aunt, and he punched and kicked him to death. The judge directed the jury that he could rely on diminished responsibility only if he would have killed even if he had not been drinking.
Legal principle
The House of Lords quashed the murder conviction and ordered a retrial. Lord Hutton said that the jury should be directed to ignore the effect of the drink and consider whether, despite the drink, the defendant's abnormality of mind substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his fatal acts. It does not have to be shown that the defendant would have killed if he had not been drinking, because the abnormality of mind and the intoxication may both have contributed to his actions.
Related cases on murder and voluntary manslaughter
- Attorney General for Jersey v Holley [2005] UKPC 23, [2005] 2 AC 580
- R v Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889
- R v Asmelash [2013] EWCA Crim 157, [2014] QB 103
- R v Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396
- R v Challen [2019] EWCA Crim 916
- R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2, [2013] QB 1
- R v Dawes; R v Hatter; R v Bowyer [2013] EWCA Crim 322, [2014] 1 WLR 947
- R v Dowds [2012] EWCA Crim 281, [2012] 1 WLR 2576
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
