R v Asmelash [2013] EWCA Crim 157; [2013] 1 Cr App R 33, [2013] Crim. L.R. 599

Intoxication can be a defence in criminal cases, particularly if it affects the defendant's ability to form the required intent.

• Voluntary intoxication (when the defendant chooses to consume alcohol or drugs) rarely provides a full defence but may influence the evaluation of intent for specific intent crimes.

• Voluntarily becoming intoxicated typically does not excuse criminal behavior. In cases of specific intent crimes, like murder, it might be argued that the intoxication prevented the formation of the required intent, potentially affecting the charges or sentence.

• In trials involving intoxication, the judge must clearly instruct the jury on how this affects the assessment of intent.

• Proper guidance is crucial for the jury to understand the relevance of intoxication to the defendant’s mental state.

• When a defendant is charged with murder and was intoxicated, the jury must consider whether the intoxication impaired the ability to form the intent necessary for murder, as guided by the judge's directions.

• The 'loss of control' defence may apply if the defendant argues that intoxication contributed to an overwhelming loss of self-control, impacting their ability to form intent.

  • This can lead to a lesser charge, such as manslaughter.

On 4 April 2011, Haileab Tadesse was killed by Dawit Asmelash (“Appellant”).

• Tadesse was stabbed twice by Asmelash, resulting in a fatal wound to the chest that required severe force and penetrated deeply, causing significant damage and leading to his death.

• Both Asmelash and Tadesse were heavy drinkers and had been drinking together on the day of the incident.

• They were seen arguing and behaving aggressively towards each other while intoxicated.

• The fatal incident occurred in their shared accommodation at 29 Palm Street, Middlesbrough.

• A witness observed Asmelash and Tadesse fighting in the living room, with Asmelash eventually stabbing Tadesse.

• Asmelash tried to remove the knife from Tadesse's body, but the handle broke off, leaving the blade inside.

• Tadesse fell to the floor and died from the injury.

• Asmelash initially lied to the police, claiming he found Tadesse already injured.

• He later admitted to the stabbing but claimed he acted out of fear and self-defense due to Tadesse's aggressive behavior.

On 5 March 2012, Asmelash was convicted of murder in the Crown Court at Teeside.

• He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 15 years.

Asmelash appealed against his conviction, arguing that the judge's directions to the jury on the loss of control defense in the context of his intoxication were incorrect.

The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, upheld the conviction of Dawit Asmelash for murder. 

The judgment concluded that the trial judge had correctly directed the jury regarding the "loss of control" defense in voluntary intoxication. 

The court found that voluntary intoxication did not excuse or justify the defendant's actions in this case.

• Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the murder conviction stood.

In the case, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, grappled with the intersection of intoxication and criminal liability, particularly in the context of murder. 

Intoxication, especially when voluntarily induced, rarely serves as a complete defense in criminal cases.

• It typically does not absolve a defendant of criminal liability unless it specifically negates the required mental state for the crime charged.

In specific intent crimes like murder, where the prosecution must prove intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, intoxication might be relevant.

• It can be argued that intoxication prevented the defendant from forming the necessary intent, potentially reducing the charge or sentence.

Under English law, the defense of "loss of control" can mitigate murder to manslaughter if the defendant can show that loss of self-control was triggered by a qualifying trigger and that a person of their sex and age with normal tolerance and restraint might have reacted in the same way.

The appeal centered on whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the defense of loss of control in the context of intoxication were correct.

• The Court of Appeal upheld Asmelash's murder conviction, ruling that voluntary intoxication did not negate his criminal liability.

• The appellate court found that the trial judge properly instructed the jury on how to consider Asmelash's intoxication concerning the loss of control defense.

• It emphasized that voluntary intoxication could not justify or excuse Asmelash's actions leading to Tadesse's death.

Despite Asmelash's assertion of acting in self-defense due to fear caused by Tadesse's aggression, the court determined that the evidence did not support a justification defense under the circumstances.

The judgment reinforced established legal principles that voluntary intoxication generally does not absolve criminal liability unless it directly affects the mental elements of the offense.