R v Wood [2008] EWCA Crim 1305;
[2008] 3 All ER 898; [2008] 2 Cr App R 34; [2009] 1 WLR 496; [2008] Crim LR 976
MURDER, VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION, INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION, ALCOHOLISM, DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY, MENTAL IMPAIRMENT
Facts
The appellant, Wood, 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. According to his evidence, 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 Wood 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 on diminished responsibility arising from alcohol-induced brain damage. He also directed them that, without such damage, the defence 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. Wood was convicted of murder.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
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 jury had to decide whether the defendant’s alcohol dependency syndrome was of such an extent and nature that it constituted an abnormality of mind induced by disease or illness. Observable brain damage was not a prerequisite.
(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 substantially impaired 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.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the murder conviction. The directions wrongly implied that giving in to a craving could not be involuntary and that the syndrome had to be disregarded unless every drink consumed that day was involuntary. The court invited submissions on whether to order a retrial or substitute a manslaughter conviction on grounds of diminished responsibility.
