The Meaning of ‘Attributable to Intoxication’: Self-Defence and Mistaken Belief
| Date | 01 October 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018318806408 |
| Published date | 01 October 2018 |
| Author | Tony Storey |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
Case Note
The Meaning of ‘Attributable
to Intoxication’: Self-Defence
and Mistaken Belief
RvTaj [2018] EWCA Crim 1743
In the early afternoon of Sunday 31 January 2016, Simon Taj (T) was driving along the Albert Embank-
ment in central London. He came across Mohammed Awan (M), an electrician, whose van had broken
down. M was standing next to the vehicle which had a plume of smoke emanating from it. T parked
alongside M’s car and asked if he could do anything to help. At that point M was using his phone to try to
arrange a recovery vehicle but he asked T if he had any jump leads. At this, T became suspicious and
began asking M questions. T then walked off, out of M’s hearing, and rang 999 to report a ‘possible
bomb scare threat’.
T returned to M’s van and asked to look inside. M allowed T to look inside where (unsurprisingly,
given M’s occupation) T noticed electrical equipment and wires. However, T concluded that M was
involved in terrorist activities. Responding to the 999 call, the police soon arrived and quickly decided
that M was not a terrorist but simply an electrician whose vehicle had broken down. They attempted to
jump-start his van but this only generated more smoke. They abandoned attempts to restart the vehicle,
advised M to get it towed to a garage, and left. T also left but, as he drove away, he continued to be
troubled by what he had seen.
He returned to the scene to find M still standing next to his van and talking on his phone. T formed the
view that M was inquiring how to detonate a bomb. T armed himself with a tyre lever from his own van,
approached M and began to attack him with it, striking him over the head, inflicting a number of serious
injuries including a fractured skull and eye socket. Witnesses later described the attack as ‘vicious’, ‘the
worst that they had ever witnessed’, and ‘quite horrific’. M tried to escape while witnesses called the
police. When they arrived and instructed T to desist he expressed surprise saying ‘why are you arresting
me he’s the terrorist’. He initially resiste d arrest and tried to flee the scene but was arrest ed soon
afterwards.
T was charged with attempted murder and appeared before HHJ Dodgson and a jury at Kingston-
upon-Thames Crown Court in October 2016. He pleaded not guilty on the basis of self-defence and
defence of others in that he had genuinely believed that M was a terrorist. However, HHJ Dodgson ruled
that the defence was unavailable to T because of s. 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
(the 2008 Act). This provides at s. 76(4) that an accused (D) is entitled to plead either self-defence and/or
defence or another, based on their genuine belief as to the facts, including a mistaken belief, whether or
not that belief was reasonably held. However, s. 76(5) then provides that ‘subsection (4)(b) does not
enable D to rely on any mistak en belief attributable to int oxication that was voluntarily induced’
(emphasis added).
Evidence presented to the Crown Court revealed that T had a long-standing problem with alcohol and
drug use and that his consumption of intoxicating substances had brought on ‘feelings of paranoia’.
These feelings could come ‘in the form of voices, and feelings of aggression and vulnerability, as if he
were under threat’ (at [16]). He admitted to the jury that in the weeks leading up to the incident he had
been habitually drinking to excess and had used cocaine. Starting on the evening of Friday 29 January
2016 and continuing into the early hours of the following morning, he had consumed a large amount of
The Journal of Criminal Law
2018, Vol. 82(5) 362–365
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022018318806408
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial