## 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.


R v Asmelash [2013] 1 Cr App R 33