This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

R v Dietschmann [2003] Crim LR 550

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 04/01/2024 07:02

Judgement for the case R v Dietschmann

KEY POINTS

  • A defendant's chronic mental illness and acute intoxication can both be considered when assessing diminished responsibility in law.

  • Voluntary intoxication doesn't negate a plea of diminished responsibility when an associated medical condition contributes significantly to the act.

FACTS

  • Dietschmann, the defendant, was charged with murder. He pleaded diminished responsibility due to his chronic alcoholism, classified as a recognized medical condition ("alcohol dependency syndrome").

  • During the incident, Dietschmann was under the influence of acute voluntary intoxication.

JUDGEMENT

  • The House of Lords deemed that chronic alcoholism and acute intoxication could collectively contribute to an act, with neither negating the claim of diminished responsibility.

  • The initial murder conviction against Dietschmann was quashed and substituted with manslaughter.

COMMENTARY

  • This ruling set a significant precedent for assessing diminished responsibility where there's a conjunction of a mental illness with acute intoxication.

  • The decision emphasizes the importance of considering medical conditions and temporary impairments separately and understanding their combined effect on a defendant's actions.

  • The judgement provides guidance for future cases involving intoxication and mental health issues, offering a more nuanced approach to the law of diminished responsibility. It has been a pivotal topic in discussions about the criminal responsibility of individuals suffering from chronic conditions coupled with substance abuse issues.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

  • A man killed his friend while drunk and when suffering from depression in the wake of his aunt’s death.

  • The judge said the jury had to consider whether the defendant would have killed his friend if he had not been drunk and if he would have been under diminished responsibility when he did so. The jury convicted him of murder and the appellant’s appeal was dismissed by CA.

  • HL allowed the appeal, saying that there was misdirection: even if he would not have killed but for drinking, he was still under an abnormal state of mind when he did the killing and this reduced his mental responsibility.

  • This abandoned the Gittens test which was “if he had not been drunk, would he have killed as in fact he did?” If not then diminished responsibility was not open to him.

  • Lord Hutton considers more than one factor as playing a part (drunkenness AND abnormality) 

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on R v Dietschmann

Criminal Law Notes
1,072 total pages
662 purchased

Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...

GDL Criminal Law Notes
551 total pages
76 purchased

A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an O...

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started

Related Product Samples

These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.

Criminal LawIntoxication Notes (3 pages)
GDL Criminal LawMurder Voluntary Manslaughter Notes (9 pages)
Claim every advantage to get a first in law
Criminal Law Notes
1,072 total pages
662 purchased

Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...