Intoxication: R v Taj (Simon)
[2018] EWCA Crim 1743
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Introduction:
In this case, R v Taj (Simon)1, the Court of Appeal sought to clarify what is meant by the phrase “attributable to
intoxication” in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 s76(5), applicable in cases of mistaken self-
defence.2 The defendant couldn’t rely on the defence because his mistaken belief was attributable to a voluntary
induced intoxication. It was decided that s.76 applies to cases in which the drugs and alcohol are not present in
the defendant’s system at the time of the offence.3 Meaning s.76 could cover cases where a mistaken belief is
formed and it is a proximate or immediate result of earlier intoxication. The defendant was convicted of
attempted murder and appealed.
Facts:
Simon Taj (the defendant) began abusing drugs and alcohol at an early age which eventually started affecting
his mental state causing psychosis making him paranoid and very aggressive. On the night of 29 January 2016
Taj drank excessively until the morning of 30 January.
On 31st January 2016 while driving around London, Taj saw Mohammed Awain, an electrician, whose car had
broken down on the side of the road with smoke coming out of it. Taj alerted the authorities about a “possible
bomb scare threat”. Thinking the defendant was a security officer, Awain allowed him to look inside the car
where his electrical equipment was which led Taj to believe that Mr Awain was involved in terrorist activity.
The police arrived and confirmed that Mr Awain was not a terrorist. The defendant drove away but still had
1
R v Taj [2018] EWCA Crim 1743 (CA)
2
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, s.76(5)
3
Taj(n1) [H3]
, “ruminating thoughts” about Awain.4 He returned to the scene with a tyre lever just to find Mr Awain awaiting
by his vehicle. Taj hit him around the head a number of times with the tyre lever with the purpose of
incapacitating him, causing serious injuries.
The Defendant pleaded self-defence under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to his conviction of
attempted murder.5 He argued that even though his belief about Awain was wrong, he could rely on s76(4)(b)
because it was an honest and genuine one whether or not it was reasonable of him to have made that mistake.6
The prosecution argued that s.76(5) precluded Taj from relying on his “honest” mistake because it was
attributable to a voluntarily induced psychosis. The defendant, however, argued that s.76(5) applied only to
circumstances where the beliefs were formed while voluntarily intoxicated and since there was no suggestion of
him being intoxicated on the day of the incident, he should not be deprived of the defence.7 The defence sought
to rely on the decision in R v Harris8 where the defendant was held not to have the mens rea for an offence
because of psychosis which was the result of his sudden termination of consuming alcohol.9
The trial judge in Taj found that s.76(5)’s phrase “attributable to intoxication” could be extended to include
cases where alcohol and drugs were absent from the defendant’s system at the time of the offence if there was
evidence that they continue to affect a person’s intellect.10 He ruled that the principle outlined in Director of
Public Prosecutions v Majewski11 applied.12 Therefore, self-defence was withdrawn from the jury.13
4
Taj (n1) [7]
5
ibid [19]
6
ibid
7
ibid
8 R v Harris [2013] EWCA Crim 223
9
Taj (n1) [19]
10
Taj (n1) [21]
11Director of Public Prosecutions v Majewski [1977] AC 443
12
ibid [20]
13
ibid [h2]
[2018] EWCA Crim 1743
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Introduction:
In this case, R v Taj (Simon)1, the Court of Appeal sought to clarify what is meant by the phrase “attributable to
intoxication” in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 s76(5), applicable in cases of mistaken self-
defence.2 The defendant couldn’t rely on the defence because his mistaken belief was attributable to a voluntary
induced intoxication. It was decided that s.76 applies to cases in which the drugs and alcohol are not present in
the defendant’s system at the time of the offence.3 Meaning s.76 could cover cases where a mistaken belief is
formed and it is a proximate or immediate result of earlier intoxication. The defendant was convicted of
attempted murder and appealed.
Facts:
Simon Taj (the defendant) began abusing drugs and alcohol at an early age which eventually started affecting
his mental state causing psychosis making him paranoid and very aggressive. On the night of 29 January 2016
Taj drank excessively until the morning of 30 January.
On 31st January 2016 while driving around London, Taj saw Mohammed Awain, an electrician, whose car had
broken down on the side of the road with smoke coming out of it. Taj alerted the authorities about a “possible
bomb scare threat”. Thinking the defendant was a security officer, Awain allowed him to look inside the car
where his electrical equipment was which led Taj to believe that Mr Awain was involved in terrorist activity.
The police arrived and confirmed that Mr Awain was not a terrorist. The defendant drove away but still had
1
R v Taj [2018] EWCA Crim 1743 (CA)
2
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, s.76(5)
3
Taj(n1) [H3]
, “ruminating thoughts” about Awain.4 He returned to the scene with a tyre lever just to find Mr Awain awaiting
by his vehicle. Taj hit him around the head a number of times with the tyre lever with the purpose of
incapacitating him, causing serious injuries.
The Defendant pleaded self-defence under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to his conviction of
attempted murder.5 He argued that even though his belief about Awain was wrong, he could rely on s76(4)(b)
because it was an honest and genuine one whether or not it was reasonable of him to have made that mistake.6
The prosecution argued that s.76(5) precluded Taj from relying on his “honest” mistake because it was
attributable to a voluntarily induced psychosis. The defendant, however, argued that s.76(5) applied only to
circumstances where the beliefs were formed while voluntarily intoxicated and since there was no suggestion of
him being intoxicated on the day of the incident, he should not be deprived of the defence.7 The defence sought
to rely on the decision in R v Harris8 where the defendant was held not to have the mens rea for an offence
because of psychosis which was the result of his sudden termination of consuming alcohol.9
The trial judge in Taj found that s.76(5)’s phrase “attributable to intoxication” could be extended to include
cases where alcohol and drugs were absent from the defendant’s system at the time of the offence if there was
evidence that they continue to affect a person’s intellect.10 He ruled that the principle outlined in Director of
Public Prosecutions v Majewski11 applied.12 Therefore, self-defence was withdrawn from the jury.13
4
Taj (n1) [7]
5
ibid [19]
6
ibid
7
ibid
8 R v Harris [2013] EWCA Crim 223
9
Taj (n1) [19]
10
Taj (n1) [21]
11Director of Public Prosecutions v Majewski [1977] AC 443
12
ibid [20]
13
ibid [h2]
