Simon Taj (pictured), 33, was sentenced to 14 years in prison in 2016 for a brutal attack on Mohammed Awan
A removal man jailed for trying to kill a Muslim white van driver because he thought he was a terrorist is appealing his conviction on the grounds his hangover made him ‘psychotic’.
Simon Taj, 33, was sentenced to 14 years in prison in October 2016 for a brutal attack on Mohammed Awan.
He hit his ‘unfortunate victim’ repeatedly over the head with a wrench after seeing a ‘plume of smoke’ coming from his broken down van as it sat on Westminster Bridge on January 31 2016.
Believing he was a jihadi about to unleash terror on central London, Taj launched his violent assault, leaving him with multiple injuries, including a fractured skull and eye socket.
He had indulged in a heavy drinking session the previous day and his hangover was so bad he claims it induced ‘psychotic delusions’ that Mr Awan – who was awaiting assistance for his broken-down vehicle – was a Jihadi about to carry out a terrorist outrage.
The convicted attempted murderer tried to use the defence during his trial, but the judge failed to buy it, eventually withdrawing the option of self-defence from the jury.
But now a judge has allowed him to use it to appeal his conviction.
Taj (pictured) left the removal van driver with a fractured skull and eye socket after he saw smoke coming out of his vehicle near Westminster Bridge in central London
Yesterday Judge Brian Leveson, sitting at London’s Appeal Court with Mr Justice Jeremy Baker and Mr Justice Martin Spencer, said that Taj was particularly sensitive to the after-effects of alcohol, so much so that his hangovers sometimes reached the level of a ‘mental disorder.’
But at the time of his trial doctors refused to back Taj’s claim of temporary insanity, and the judge withdrew from the jury the option of finding that, in his scrambled state of mind, Taj acted in reasonable self-defence when inflicting life-threatening injuries on Mr Awan.
Taj’s barrister, Trevor Siddle, is now arguing that the trial judge was wrong, telling the court: ‘It is submitted that it was wrong for the judge to have withdrawn the issue of self-defence from the jury.
‘On the previous day he had drunk extensively.’ He was ‘not voluntarily intoxicated’, but was suffering the ‘effects of post-intoxication’, he added.
Taj, of Finsbury Park, north London, had an unusual sensitivity to alcohol and a ‘type of psychosis could materialise some time after the consumption and kick in some time down the line,’ Mr Siddle said.
Judge Leveson responded: ‘This was a really very disturbing set of events. The police had responded to Taj saying, “I think he’s a terrorist.”
‘But there was no evidence of this, although smoke was emitted from the broken-down vehicle when the victim stopped. The police entirely cleared this unfortunate victim.’
The judge said Taj ‘knew perfectly well that, if he drinks, he is at risk of suffering paranoid delusions.’
He added: ‘It is incredibly important that people in his position are not entitled to be acquitted of the most grievous crimes because of self-induced psychiatric disorder.’
Mr Justice Baker then asked: ‘If he knew he could get into this delusional state through drink, why should he be allowed a defence?’
But now he has been granted permission to appeal, claiming ‘temporary insanity’ took over as a result of his hangover, making him believe his actions were justified
Judge Leveson did grant permission for a full appeal, saying: ‘This case generates a series of important questions of law.
‘There are issues which arise in this case which clearly go beyond that which was put before the jury and concerning the interplay between insanity and self-defence, in circumstances of a defendant suffering a mental disorder following on from prior consumption of alcohol.
‘It is at least open to argument how that interplay ought to be resolved in the public interest.’
The judge added that the case was so important, he would recommend the appeal be heard by five top judges instead of the usual three.
He added that the full court will wrestle with the question of ‘whether self-defence is open to a person suffering from a mental disorder who, as a consequence, genuinely believes that the circumstances justify the use of force, but whose belief is based on delusion or other mental disorder.’
An Appeal Court hearing yesterday was told Taj, of Finsbury Park, north London, had an ‘acute sensitivity’ to alcohol but had drunk it anyway