Bottarelli, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal against the Appellant's convictions for attempted murder, heard by the Court of Appeal on 5 March 2026 (judgment delivered by Judge Males). The Appellant (aged 46) had pleaded guilty on 11 October 2023 to two counts of wounding with intent (counts 4 and 6), one count of affray (count 7) and one count of having an offensive weapon (count 8). Pleas to the wounding counts were not accepted and the Appellant was tried on three counts of attempted murder (counts 1, 3 and 5) and one count of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent (count 2). The Appellant was acquitted of count 1 and convicted on counts 2, 3 and 5 on 21 February 2024. Sentence of 30 years' imprisonment was imposed by Judge Greenberg on 30 April 2024. The Appellant also sought an extension of time (21 days) to apply for leave to appeal his sentence if the conviction appeal failed.

Material facts as found at trial: while employed as a gardener/maintenance operative at The Hospital, the Appellant attended work on 21 June 2023 armed with a mattock and scalpels, having consumed a large quantity of Class A drugs (heroin and crack cocaine) beforehand. He made a number of attacks on colleagues: he raised a mattock towards a colleague (no physical injury resulted); he stabbed a colleague in the throat with a scalpel (who required hospital treatment); and he struck another colleague at least twice to the head with the mattock, causing serious head injuries. The Appellant returned home, inflicted self-harm, and was found by police with self-inflicted injuries; weapons were recovered. The Appellant gave evidence and served Defence Statements admitting an intention to cause serious harm to two colleagues but denying any intention to kill.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge failed adequately to direct the jury on the effect of voluntary intoxication (drugs) when considering the specific intent element of attempted murder.
2. Whether, if the conviction appeal fails, an extension of time should be granted to apply for leave to appeal the sentence imposed.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Attorney Rasiah submitted the judge's direction on voluntary intoxication was inadequate in a specific-intent case and relied on R v Sheehan and Moore and R v Aidid and the Crown Court Compendium guidance (paras 9.4–9.5).
• The Appellant had been heavily intoxicated by Class A drugs and there was sufficient evidence of intoxication to make formation of specific intent a live issue for the jury.
• The judge should have directed the jury explicitly to consider intoxication when deciding whether the Appellant had the intention to kill, in the two-limb form derived from Sheehan and Moore (i.e. warn that drunken intent is nevertheless intent, but instruct jury to have regard to all evidence including intoxication and ask whether they feel sure the requisite intent was present).
• Such a direction should be given whenever there is sufficient evidence of drug/alcohol consumption to make intent a potential issue, regardless of the precise defence advanced.

Crown's Arguments / Prosecution Case

• The prosecution case was that the Appellant intended to kill two colleagues and to cause serious injury to another, relying on the totality of conduct before, during and after the attacks.
• The prosecution contended that voluntary intoxication is not a defence; the judge's directions were adequate and the jury had sufficient evidence (including the Appellant's admissions and the nature of the attacks) to find the requisite intent.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court of Appeal (Judge Males) first summarised the applicable law on voluntary intoxication and specific intent, adopting the analysis in Aidid and Sheehan. The court identified the threshold question: whether there was a realistic issue in the case that drug consumption had extinguished the Appellant's necessary mens rea for attempted murder.

The court then analysed the factual matrix. The Appellant had pleaded guilty and accepted in Defence Statements that he had formed the intent to cause really serious bodily harm to two colleagues. The defence at trial did not assert that voluntary intoxication rendered the Appellant incapable of forming intent; no psychiatric evidence proving incapacity was put before the jury (a report existed but was not adduced). The judge's summing-up directed the jury to decide intention from the whole of the evidence and expressly acknowledged voluntary consumption of drugs while stating the law that voluntary intoxication is no defence to specific intent unless it removes capacity. The jury also asked a question about drug addiction and diminished responsibility; the judge answered that drug addiction did not cause diminished responsibility in the case and that drug-induced intention was still an intention, a response with which both trial counsel were content.

On this basis the court concluded (i) there was no realistic issue that the Appellant lacked the capacity to form the intent required for attempted murder, because his admissions and pleas neutralised such a contention; (ii) even if a specific direction on intoxication should have been given, omission did not render the convictions unsafe in all the circumstances, given the judge's other directions, the jury's question and the nature and severity of the attacks which themselves supported inferences of intent. The court rejected the submission that capacity to form intent to cause grievous bodily harm was meaningfully distinct from capacity to form intent to kill in this case.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED

Consequences and direct effects:

• The Court dismissed the appeal against conviction for attempted murder; the convictions on counts 2, 3 and 5 stand.
• The application for leave to appeal the sentence and the application for an extension of time to seek leave were refused; the sentence of 30 years' imprisonment is not disturbed.
• However, the court granted limited leave in respect of counts 4 and 6 (the alternative wounding with intent counts), quashed the erroneous "no separate penalty" entries on those counts and ordered that those offences lie on the file in accordance with R v Butler [2023] EWCA Crim 676. This does not affect the overall sentence.

Broader implications: The judgment applies existing authorities (notably Aidid and Sheehan) and reiterates that a specific direction on voluntary intoxication is required only where evidence makes it a realistic issue that intoxication extinguished mens rea; where the defendant has unequivocally admitted the requisite state of mind, omission of a specialist intoxication direction will not necessarily render convictions unsafe.