DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY AND INTOXICATION: INTERPRETATION, POLICY AND AUTHORITY IN R v DIETSCHMANN
Main Article Content
Abstract
The latest decision of the House of Lords in relation to the interpretation and application of the defence of diminished responsibility in R v Dietschmann1 is to be welcomed as clarifying the issue of what may be regarded as an adequate judicial direction to the jury. The analysis of the defence has been problematic ever since its introduction in s 2 of the Homicide Act 1957.2 One possible explanation of the difficulties the defence has caused is the fact that it is an importation from Scots law, intended to ameliorate the dissatisfaction with the general defence of insanity. Accordingly, the defence has been shoe-horned into the complex common law in relation to homicide and sits uneasily with it.
Article Details
Section
Articles
Authors retain the copyright and grant to the Journal the right to publish under license.
Authors retain the right to use their article (provided you acknowledge the published original in standard bibliographic citation form) in the following ways, as long as you do not sell it or give it away in ways that would conflict with our commercial business interests:
internal educational or other purposes of your own institution or company;
mounted on your own or your institutions website;
posted to free public servers of preprints and or article in your subject area;
or in whole or in part, as the basis for your own further publications or spoken presentations.