R v Foy (Nicholas): voluntary intoxication, mental health and the case for diminished responsibility

Abstract

In R v Foy, the appellant sought to adduce fresh evidence based on a difference in expert opinion. Dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal in England held that, where there is no solid basis for expert assertions, these appeals must fail. The case highlights the legal complexities intrinsic in diminished responsibility cases in the context of intoxication and mental health issues. This commentary addresses the legal ambiguities that arise under these circumstances.