R v Asmelash [2013] 1 Cr App R 33

Facts

  • Mr. Asmelash consumed a large amount of alcohol before fatally stabbing the victim.
  • He claimed to have lost self-control due to the victim's provocative behavior.
  • At trial, the judge directed the jury to consider whether a sober person with ordinary tolerance and self-restraint might have responded similarly in Mr. Asmelash's situation.
  • The jury rejected the loss of control defence and convicted Mr. Asmelash of murder.

Issues

  1. Whether deliberate drunkenness should be taken into account when applying the "ordinary person" test in section 54(1)(c) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 for the loss of control defence.
  2. Whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury to disregard the defendant's intoxication in assessing the "ordinary person" standard.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and confirmed the correctness of the trial judge’s direction.
  • It held that the "ordinary person" in section 54(1)(c) is always considered to be sober.
  • Deliberate drunkenness cannot be taken into account when assessing whether a person of ordinary tolerance and self-restraint might have reacted similarly.
  • The defendant’s own situation may be considered, but not the characteristic of intoxication for the "ordinary person" test.

Legal Principles

  • The loss of control defence in sections 54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 partially replaces the common law defence of provocation and includes an objective "ordinary person" test.
  • The "ordinary person" under section 54(1)(c) always possesses ordinary powers of tolerance and self-restraint and is presumed to be sober, regardless of the defendant’s actual intoxication.
  • Deliberate intoxication does not excuse criminal conduct and cannot reduce the objective standard for self-control.
  • The approach to alcohol in the context of diminished responsibility differs, as alcohol dependency syndrome may be relevant to that defence.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in R v Asmelash clarified that, for the loss of control defence, the hypothetical "ordinary person" standard excludes deliberate drunkenness, maintaining a consistent objective threshold regardless of the defendant’s intoxication and ensuring deliberate drunkenness does not reduce criminal responsibility.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal