R v Taj [2018]

1. Facts:

• D was heavily intoxicated, which led to a psychotic episode.

• The day after the intoxication, D attacked V, believing V was a terrorist.

• D argued that intoxication should not apply as it was no longer in his system.

2. Outcome:

• The court held that the phrase "attributable to intoxication" was wide enough to cover the psychosis brought on by the prior intoxication.

• Conviction upheld.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Extended Scope of Intoxication: The court's decision broadened the interpretation of intoxication to include subsequent psychosis caused by prior intoxication.

• Legal Clarification: Reinforced that the effects of intoxication, even when not directly present in the system, can still influence legal liability.

• Mens Rea Consideration: Emphasised the importance of considering the root cause of the psychotic state in determining criminal responsibility.