R. v Asmelash (Dawit)

Rees talks about R v. Asmelash case, in which the court held that it had been submitted on behalf of A that in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 s.54(1)(c) the reference to "circumstances" included A's drunkenness at the material time. A was convicted of murder. It was alleged that du...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Criminal law review 2013-07 (7), p.599-600
Main Authors: Rees, Tom, Ashworth, Andrew
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Common law
Coroners
Crime
Criminal justice
Drunkenness
Evidence
Intoxication
Killing
Murder
Murders & murder attempts
Penis
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Rees talks about R v. Asmelash case, in which the court held that it had been submitted on behalf of A that in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 s.54(1)(c) the reference to "circumstances" included A's drunkenness at the material time. A was convicted of murder. It was alleged that during a violent quarrel with the deceased, T, A stabbed T twice, killing him. A at first denied killing T, but later said that he lost his self-control when T insulted A's mother and danced round pushing his penis towards A's face and hitting him with a beer can. Both men were drunk. On the contrary, Ashworth details that in the absence of a code or of general legislation on what is often termed "the general part of the criminal law", the doctrines of the common law are presumed to apply. This covers the definition of key terms such as intention and recklessness, and also possible defenses such as intoxication and duress. The general principle is that intoxication is only a defense to crimes of "specific intent". Murder is such a crime.
ISSN:0011-135X