R v Taj
A defendant cannot rely on a mistaken belief caused by intoxication, even where the intoxication had worn off but its effects, such as a psychotic episode, continued.
Facts
Mr Taj attacked a man whom he believed to be a terrorist, hitting him with a tyre lever and causing serious injuries. He had taken drink and drugs in the previous days, and was suffering from drug induced psychosis, although he was no longer intoxicated at the time of the attack. He was convicted of attempted murder, after the judge ruled that he could not rely on his mistaken belief because it was attributable to voluntary intoxication.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. Lord Burnett CJ said that the words attributable to intoxication in section 76(5) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 cover not only cases where drink or drugs are still present in the defendant's body, but also cases where the defendant's mistaken belief is caused by the immediate effects of earlier voluntary intoxication, such as a psychotic episode. Public policy requires that a person who has voluntarily become intoxicated should not be able to rely on a mistake caused by that intoxication.
Related cases on defences: self defence, duress and necessity
- Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) [2001] Fam 147
- Beckford v The Queen [1988] AC 130
- R (Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 33 (Admin), [2016] QB 862
- R v Bowen [1997] 1 WLR 372
- R v Clegg [1995] 1 AC 482
- R v Conway [1989] QB 290
- R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273
- R v Gotts [1992] 2 AC 412
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
