{"title":"R v Foy(尼古拉斯):自愿醉酒、精神健康和减轻责任的案例","authors":"B. Simpson","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v72i2.880","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":83211,"journal":{"name":"The Northern Ireland legal quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"R v Foy (Nicholas): voluntary intoxication, mental health and the case for diminished responsibility\",\"authors\":\"B. Simpson\",\"doi\":\"10.53386/nilq.v72i2.880\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":83211,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Northern Ireland legal quarterly\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Northern Ireland legal quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v72i2.880\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Northern Ireland legal quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v72i2.880","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在R v Foy案中,上诉人试图根据专家意见的不同提出新的证据。英国上诉法院驳回了上诉,认为如果没有专家断言的坚实基础,这些上诉必须失败。该案件突出了在醉酒和精神健康问题背景下责任减轻案件所固有的法律复杂性。本评注涉及在这些情况下产生的法律歧义。
R v Foy (Nicholas): voluntary intoxication, mental health and the case for diminished responsibility
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.