R v Wood [2008] EWCA Crim 1305;
[2008] 3 All ER 898; [2008] 2 Cr App R 34; [2009] 1 WLR 496; [2008] 2 Cr App Rep 34; [2009] WLR 496; [2008] Crim LR 976
MURDER, VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION, INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION, ALCOHOLISM, DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY, MENTAL IMPAIRMENT
Facts
The appellant, Woods, was an alcoholic who drank on average 4 to 5 litres of strong cider daily. After having drunk 2-3 litres of cider, several cans of lager, brandy and vodka, he stayed at the victim’s home. During the night, he woke up and found the victim making unwanted sexual advances towards him. He lost his self-control and killed the victim, by repeatedly striking him with a meat cleaver. At the trial, he claimed diminished responsibility under s. 2(1) Homicide Act 1957. The four expert witnesses agreed that Woods was suffering from alcohol dependency but were divided on the issue whether he had brain damage as a result of it. The judge directed the jury that diminished responsibility was available only if the consumption of alcohol was truly involuntary. According to the judge, drinking more than the normal quota for an alcoholic was not an involuntary act, but giving in to craving and thus, a voluntary act. Woods was convicted of murder.
Issue
Is giving in to a craving a voluntary act and therefore, not capable of giving rise to a defence of diminished responsibility under s. 2(1) Homicide Act 1957?
Held
(1) The question whether the perpetrator’s syndrome was of such nature as to cause mental abnormality was material to the case.
(2) If it is not of such nature, diminished responsibility based on consumption of alcohol would fail as a defence to murder.
(3) If the syndrome was of such nature as to cause mental abnormality, the jury needs to consider whether the syndrome was impacting the defendant’s mental responsibility at the time of the killing. In deciding this, the jury needs to consider the effect of the alcohol consumed as a result of the illness, not the alcohol consumed voluntarily.
(4) If abnormality of mind as a result of the syndrome is established, its impact on the individual case needs to be addressed by taking into account factors such as to what extent the craving for alcohol was irresistible, whether the consumption of alcohol in the period leading up to the killing was voluntary or involuntary and whether the defendant’s mental responsibility was substantially impaired by the alcohol consumed as a result of the syndrome.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in R v Wood [2008] EWCA Crim 1305 and the legal principles established therein. However, readers should be aware of one important development: the defence of diminished responsibility has since been significantly amended. Section 52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 replaced s. 2(1) of the Homicide Act 1957 with a new, restructured formulation. The revised provision changes the language from ‘abnormality of mind’ to ‘abnormality of mental functioning’, and requires that the abnormality must arise from a ‘recognised medical condition’. It also requires that the abnormality must have substantially impaired the defendant’s ability to understand the nature of their conduct, form a rational judgement, or exercise self-control. The core principles from Wood regarding alcohol dependency syndrome and the distinction between voluntary and involuntary consumption of alcohol in the context of diminished responsibility remain relevant and have been considered in subsequent cases under the amended provision (see, e.g., R v Stewart [2009] EWCA Crim 593, decided shortly before the 2009 Act came into force). However, any analysis of diminished responsibility must now be conducted by reference to the 2009 Act formulation rather than the original s. 2(1) as it stood at the time of this case. Students should therefore treat this case as illustrating important common law reasoning on alcohol dependency and diminished responsibility, while applying the current statutory framework.
