Lee Chun-Chuen v The Queen: PC 1963

Their Lordships explained the meaning of the words of Viscount Salmon in Holmes: ‘It is plain that Viscount Simon must have meant the word ‘actual’ to have a limiting effect and that he had in mind some particular category of intention. He cannot have meant that any sort of intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm was generally incompatible with manslaughter because that would eliminate provocation as a line of defence . . ‘
References: [1963] AC 220
Judges: Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest
This case cites:

  • Explained – Holmes v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1946
    Viscount Simon LC said: ‘as society advances, it ought to call for a higher measure of self-control in a defendant. And with regard to the defence of provocation to a charge of murder: ‘Consequently, where the provocation inspires an actual . .
    ([1946] AC 588, (1946) 31 Cr App R 123)

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Ruth Ellis v Regina CACD 8-Dec-2003
    In 1955, the deceased defendant was convicted of murder, and later hanged. The court considerd a post mortem appeal by the CRCC and her family. It was suggested that she should have been found guilty of manslaughter having been provoked by the . .
    (, [2003] EWCA Crim 3556)
  • Cited – Regina v Derek William Bentley (Deceased) CACD 30-Jul-1998
    The defendant had been convicted of murder in 1952, and hung. A court hearing an appeal after many years must apply laws from different eras to different aspects. The law of the offence (of murder) to be applied was that at the time of the offence. . .
    (Times 31-Jul-98, , [1998] EWCA Crim 2516, (2001) 1 Cr App R 307)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192058