BACKGROUND In the recent case of R v Taj, the Court of Appeal of England & Wales upheld the conviction of a defendant who, in a psychotic delusional state, mistook his non-threatening victim to be a terrorist, violently attacking him. The law typically allows honest mistakes (even if unreasonable) as a basis for self-defence (in this case the defence of others). But because Taj's delusions were found by the court to have been caused by voluntary alcohol consumption, special legal (prior-fault) intoxication rules were applied to block his defence; Taj was convicted and sentenced to 19 years for attempted murder. ARGUMENT We focus here on the simple question - what does it mean to be intoxicated? On the facts, Taj did not have drugs active in his system at the time of the attack, but the court nonetheless insisted that Taj's delusional mistake was 'attributable to intoxication', namely to drink and drug-taking in the previous days and weeks. This extended conception of intoxication was questionably distinguished from psychosis induced by withdrawal. Furthermore, the court was unreceptive to evidence of a long-standing, underlying mental health disorder. We argue that the court's expanded view of intoxication is problematic in that intoxication-induced psychosis cannot be sharply distinguished from other causes such as mental disorders. And even if it could be distinguished, it should not give rise to blame and punishment in the same way as conduct induced by chemically active intoxicants ('drug-on-board') does. CONCLUSION The courts' expansion of the definition of intoxication is both legally and forensically problematic, introducing legal vagaries where the clinical science is already vague. And with intoxication frequently interlocking with historic intoxication and secondary or co-morbid mental health conditions, the decision risks inappropriately and/or over-criminalising defendants.

中文翻译：

---

醉酒，危险和妄想：法律概念蔓延如何冒过度犯罪化的风险

背景 在最近的 R v Taj 案中，英格兰和威尔士上诉法院维持了对一名处于精神病妄想状态的被告的定罪，该被告将他没有威胁的受害者误认为是恐怖分子，并对其进行了猛烈攻击。法律通常允许诚实的错误（即使是不合理的）作为自卫（在这种情况下为他人辩护）的基础。但由于法院认定泰姬的妄想是由自愿饮酒引起的，因此适用特殊的法律（先前过错）醉酒规则来阻止他的辩护；泰姬陵因谋杀未遂罪被定罪并判处 19 年徒刑。论证我们在这里关注一个简​​单的问题——陶醉是什么意思？事实上，在袭击发生时，泰姬陵的体内并没有药物活性，但法院仍然坚持泰姬陵 s 妄想错误是“归因于中毒”，即在前几天和几周内饮酒和吸毒。这种对中毒的扩展概念与戒断诱发的精神病相区别。此外，法院不接受长期存在的潜在精神健康障碍的证据。我们认为，法院对醉酒的扩展观点是有问题的，因为醉酒引起的精神病无法与其他原因（如精神障碍）严格区分。即使可以区分，也不应该像化学活性麻醉剂（“船上药物”）引起的行为那样引起责备和惩罚。结论 法院对醉酒定义的扩展在法律和法医上都存在问题，在临床科学已经模糊不清的地方引入法律变幻莫测。由于醉酒经常与历史性醉酒和继发性或合并症精神健康状况相互关联，因此该决定可能会导致被告不恰当和/或过度刑事化。