Hatton, R. v

Where the existing approach to self-defence has received substantial criticism, the Court of Appeal may grant leave in a proper case so that an arguable question can be reconsidered after full argument. The court did not determine whether a mistaken belief induced by voluntary intoxication can support self-defence. It treated R v O'Grady 85 Cr.App.R 315 and R v O'Connor [1991] Crim LR 135 as stating the practice then followed, without approving or displacing it.

The applicant had been convicted of murder at the Crown Court at Sheffield before Holland J and sentenced to life imprisonment. He applied for leave to appeal on the ground that he had mistakenly believed force was necessary for self-defence, and that the mistake had been induced by voluntary intoxication.

The trial judge left conventional self-defence to the jury but, following the established approach, did not permit an intoxication-induced mistake to found that defence. The central issue was whether that approach should be reconsidered.

1. Application for leave granted. The court did not decide the substantive issue. It held that the point was arguable and should be ventilated after full argument before the Court of Appeal.
2. The trial judge had followed the practice derived from R v O'Grady 85 Cr.App.R 315 and R v O'Connor [1991] Crim LR 135. Under that practice, a mistaken belief induced by voluntary intoxication could not form part of self-defence.
3. The applicant contended that those decisions were obiter, non-binding and wrong. The court noted academic criticism and criticism inferred from Law Commission Report 177. In light of that criticism, it considered that the question could appropriately be revisited in a proper case.
4. The court had reservations whether this was a suitable case and doubted whether a different direction would have altered the verdict, given the severity of the attack and the applicant's vague account. Nevertheless, the judge had left self-defence to the jury, and the applicant submitted that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to assess the perceived threat and the force used. That justified granting leave for the issue to receive full argument.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — granted the applicant leave to appeal against conviction: [2005] EWCA Crim 377.
• Crown Court at Sheffield — on 11 November 2003, Holland J convicted the applicant of murder and imposed life imprisonment.