View source for R v Taj (2018) EWCA Crim 1743

{{Case
|Date=2018/07/24
|NCN=[2018] EWCA Crim 1743
|ICLR=[2018] WLR(D) 482
|Court=Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
|Judges=Leveson, Gross, Davis, Haddon-Cave, Openshaw
|Parties=Simon Taj
|Sentence=Intoxication
|Summary=(1) ''Appeal against conviction:'' "The defence sought to rely on self-defence as codified in s76 [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008]] noting, in particular, s76(4)(b) which makes it clear that the defence is available even if the defendant is mistaken as to the circumstances as he genuinely believed them to be whether or not the mistake was a reasonable one for him to have made. Although s76(5) provides that a defendant is not entitled to rely upon any mistaken belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced, it was argued that as there was no suggestion that Taj had alcohol or drugs present in his system at the time, he was not 'intoxicated' and so was not deprived of the defence. It was also submitted that [[R v Coley (2013) EWCA Crim 223, (2013) MHLO 23|R v McGee, R v Harris, R v Coley (2013) EWCA Crim 223]] supported the proposition that to be in a state of 'voluntarily intoxication' there had to be alcohol or drugs active in the system at the time of the offence. ... In our view, the words "attributable to intoxication" in s. 76(5) are broad enough to encompass both (a) a mistaken state of mind as a result of being drunk or intoxicated at the time and (b) a mistaken state of mind immediately and proximately consequent upon earlier drink or drug-taking, so that even though the person concerned is not drunk or intoxicated at the time, the short-term effects can be shown to have triggered subsequent episodes of e.g. paranoia. This is consistent with common law principles. We repeat that this conclusion does not extend to long term mental illness precipitated (perhaps over a considerable period) by alcohol or drug misuse. In the circumstances, we agree with Judge Dodgson, that the phrase "attributable to intoxication" is not confined to cases in which alcohol or drugs are still present in a defendant's system. It is unnecessary for us to consider whether this analysis affects the decision in Harris: it is sufficient to underline that the potential significance of voluntary intoxication in the two cases differs." ''The appeal against conviction was dismissed.'' (2) ''The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.''
|Subject=Sentence appeal cases, Other criminal law cases
|News=No
|RSS pubdate=2019/2/23 11:18:26 PM
}}