Dowds v R

Voluntary acute intoxication, whether from alcohol or another voluntarily taken substance, cannot found the partial defence of diminished responsibility. The amendments to section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 did not alter that settled rule. A medical classification may identify a condition, but it does not determine whether the condition has legal effect in a criminal defence. A recognised medical condition is necessary but not invariably sufficient. Voluntary intoxication remains relevant to whether a specific intent was formed, but not otherwise as an excuse or as a basis for diminished responsibility.

The appellant was convicted of murdering his partner at Wolverhampton Crown Court. Both had been drinking heavily. The appellant maintained that he was intoxicated and had no memory of the killing.

Before trial, the judge ruled that simple voluntary and temporary drunkenness could not found diminished responsibility. The defence was therefore not left to the jury. The jury found an intent to cause serious harm and rejected the separate partial defence of loss of self-control under section 54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

On appeal, the question was whether the amended section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, in referring to an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition, permitted voluntary acute intoxication to found diminished responsibility.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge correctly withheld diminished responsibility from the jury. Voluntary acute intoxication, without alcoholism, dependence or another relevant condition, cannot found that partial defence.

2. The amendment of section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 was enacted against the established rule that voluntary intoxication is no excuse, save that it may prevent proof of a specific intent. Nothing in the expression recognised medical condition, or in the legislative history, disclosed a Parliamentary intention to reverse that rule.

3. Medical systems such as ICD-10 and DSM-IV assist diagnosis and classification. They do not answer the distinct legal question whether a condition can reduce criminal responsibility. Their breadth, and their own cautions about forensic use, showed why a classification of acute intoxication could not itself establish the statutory defence.

4. The court did not hold that every temporary condition falls outside section 2. A genuine, medically recognised and blameless temporary mental condition might potentially fall within the provision. That issue did not arise. The transitory nature of intoxication was relevant, but was not the basis of the decision.

5. Accordingly, voluntary acute intoxication from alcohol or another substance remains incapable of founding diminished responsibility. The jury's findings on intent, memory and loss of self-control therefore did not require further consideration.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial judge's ruling that voluntary temporary drunkenness could not found diminished responsibility.

• Wolverhampton Crown Court: His Honour Judge Wait ruled that diminished responsibility was unavailable on the asserted basis. The jury convicted the appellant of murder. No lower-court citation was stated.