DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY AND INTOXICATION: INTERPRETATION, POLICY AND AUTHORITY IN R v DIETSCHMANN

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.