Taj v The Crown

Taj v The Crown

A mistaken belief caused by a drug-induced psychosis, where the psychosis is the immediate and proximate result of prior voluntary intoxication, falls within the exclusion in s.76(5) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Therefore, self-defence is not available in such circumstances, even if the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Simon Taj; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
appeal against conviction dismissed; application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
Legal Topics
Self Defence, Intoxication, Attempted Murder, Mental Disorder, Sentencing
Criminal Law Self Defence Intoxication Attempted Murder Mental Disorder Sentencing

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Taj

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether self-defence was available to a defendant suffering from a drug-induced psychosis not amounting to insanity
  2. 2 Whether a mistaken belief caused by prior voluntary intoxication precludes reliance on self-defence under s.76(5) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge was correct to withdraw self-defence from the jury

Ratio Decidendi

A mistaken belief caused by a drug-induced psychosis, where the psychosis is the immediate and proximate result of prior voluntary intoxication, falls within the exclusion in s.76(5) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Therefore, self-defence is not available in such circumstances, even if the defendant is not intoxicated at the time of the offence. The trial judge was correct to withdraw self-defence from the jury. The sentence imposed was justified given the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's knowledge of the risks associated with his substance abuse.

Court Disposition

appeal against conviction dismissed; application for leave to appeal against sentence refused