Taj v The Crown

Under section 76(5) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, a mistaken belief is attributable to voluntarily induced intoxication where it is the immediate and proximate consequence of earlier voluntary drink or drug use. The intoxicants need not still be present in the defendant’s system. This does not extend to a long-term mental illness which may have been precipitated by substance misuse.

Self-defence requires both a genuine belief that force was necessary and reasonable force in the circumstances as genuinely believed. The second limb retains an objective element. A judge may withdraw the defence where no jury could properly find the force reasonable.

Simon Taj was convicted at Kingston upon Thames Crown Court of the attempted murder of Mohammed Awain. He attacked Mr Awain with a tyre lever after genuinely but mistakenly believing that Mr Awain was a terrorist with a bomb.

Expert evidence agreed that Taj was suffering from a drug- and alcohol-induced psychotic disorder, although there was no evidence that intoxicants remained in his system at the time of the attack. The trial judge withdrew self-defence and imposed an extended sentence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The appeal concerned whether Taj’s mistaken belief was attributable to voluntarily induced intoxication for section 76(5) purposes and, alternatively, whether the force used could have been reasonable.

1. Conviction appeal dismissed. Self-defence has two limbs. The defendant must genuinely believe that force is necessary, and the nature and degree of force used must be reasonable in the circumstances as the defendant genuinely believed them to be. A genuine mistake or delusion can satisfy the first limb, but the second limb includes an objective assessment of reasonableness.
2. Section 76(5). The court held that the words “attributable to intoxication” in section 76(5) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 cover both present intoxication and a mistaken state of mind immediately and proximately caused by earlier voluntary drink or drug-taking. The provision is not confined to a case in which alcohol or drugs remain in the body. It does not, however, cover a long-term mental illness merely precipitated by past substance misuse.
3. Taj’s paranoid belief was agreed to be the direct result of his voluntary consumption of drugs and alcohol in the preceding days and weeks. He knew that such consumption could cause paranoia. He was therefore precluded from relying on that mistaken belief for self-defence.
4. Alternative basis. Even if the defence had been available, the judge was entitled to withdraw it. Mr Awain was unarmed, had been investigated and cleared by the police, did not resist, and attempted to escape. No jury could properly conclude that the sustained attack to the head with a tyre lever was reasonable force. The court applied the objective aspect of the second limb explained in R v Oye [2013] EWCA Crim 1725.
5. The further psychiatric evidence did not provide a ground to allow the appeal. It raised only a possibility of a different trigger for the psychotic episode and did not undermine the agreed evidence concerning its actual cause on this occasion.
6. Sentence. Leave to appeal against the extended sentence was refused. Taj’s knowledge that drugs and alcohol could make him dangerous meant that his psychotic disorder did not reduce culpability. The finding of dangerousness and the five-year extended licence were justified.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In Taj v The Crown [2018] EWCA Crim 1743, the court dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames: On 26 October 2016, Taj was convicted of attempted murder and later sentenced to an extended sentence of 19 years’ imprisonment, comprising 14 years’ custody and five years’ licence under section 226A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.