Hatton, R. v

A defendant is ordinarily assessed in self-defence according to facts honestly believed, even if that belief was unreasonable. However, where the defendant’s mistaken belief that force was necessary was caused by voluntary intoxication, self-defence fails. The Court of Appeal was bound by R v O'Grady [1987] 1 QB 995, whose rule applied to murder as well as manslaughter. A speculative suggestion of a drunkenly induced perception, unsupported by evidence, provides no proper basis for a self-defence direction.

The appellant was convicted of murder at Sheffield Crown Court after killing Richard Pashley with a sledgehammer. He had consumed a large quantity of alcohol and claimed only a vague recollection of an altercation involving a stick.

At trial, the judge ruled that the appellant could not rely on a mistaken belief induced by drink when advancing self-defence. The appellant appealed, contending that the jury should have assessed the necessity and reasonableness of his force by reference to his drunken perception of an alleged attack.

The central issue was whether voluntary intoxication could be taken into account in considering self-defence to a charge of murder.

1. Appeal dismissed. The trial judge correctly ruled that a defendant cannot rely on self-defence where the mistaken belief that force was necessary was caused by voluntary intoxication.
2. The ordinary rule is that a person acting under an honestly held mistake is judged according to the facts as believed, even if the mistake was unreasonable. That rule is qualified where the mistake results from self-induced intoxication. In that situation, the defence fails.
3. The Court was bound by R v O'Grady [1987] 1 QB 995. Its rule was not obiter in relation to murder merely because the appellant in that case was convicted of manslaughter. The issue addressed and the certified question were expressed generally, without a distinction between murder and manslaughter. The exclusion of a voluntarily intoxicated mistake was therefore part of the reason for that decision.
4. The Court also accepted that R v O'Connor [1991] Crim LR 135 was right to treat O'Grady as binding on that point. Academic and Law Commission criticism could not permit this coordinate court to depart from the earlier authority.
5. In any event, the suggested belief that the deceased was an SAS officer attacking with a sword was pure conjecture. The evidence went no further than the appellant’s vague recollection of being struck with a stick. The judge was entitled to doubt whether self-defence arose at all and, having left the issue, correctly directed the jury to assess the force used by reference to the circumstances as the appellant believed them to be, excluding any drunken mistake.
6. The Court certified a point of general public importance concerning self-defence and a self-induced intoxicated mistake, but refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Dismissed the appeal against conviction: [2005] EWCA Crim 2951.
• Crown Court at Sheffield On 11 November 2003, convicted the appellant of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment.