The defendants appealed their respective convictions for murder, saying that they had been provoked, and that their judges had wrongly directed their juries as to what amounted to qualifying trigger under the 2009 Act, which had replaced the former provocation defence.
Held: Each appeal was rejected.
To raise the defence, the defendant had to establish three elements; that his actions resulted from his loss of self control (not now necessarily sudden), that there was a ‘qualifying trigger’, and that another in his circumstances might have reacted similarly. The court was now concerned as to the second issue. The court emphasised that the issue should not be elided with an issue of self defence.
The presence of such a threat, that it was extremely grave, and the defendant felt so seriously wronged so as to justify his actions, was not to be defined by the defendant’s assertions. These were for the objective assessment by the judge after the evidence.
Judges:
Lord Judge CJ, Rafferty LJ, Simon J
Citations:
[2013] EWCA Crim 322, [2014] 1 WLR 947, [2013] 3 All ER 308, [2013] WLR(D) 130, [2013] Crim LR 770, [2013] 2 Cr App R 3
Links:
Statutes:
Coroners and Justice Act 2009 54 55
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Crime
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472033