Miao, Regina v: CACD 17 Nov 2003

The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He said that the judge should have left to the jury the issue of whether there had been provocation.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘It is for the judge to decide if there is evidence of provoking conduct and loss of self-control. If there is sufficient evidence, it is a matter for the jury. If there is insufficient material to find as a reasonable, rather than merely speculative, possibility that there was provoking conduct and loss of self-control, there is no issue and the judge should not leave provocation to the jury. A trial judge is, in many cases, better placed than this Court to assess the quality and effect of the evidence which has been placed before the jury . . Looking at the whole of the evidence, therefore, although the judge’s decision, as it seems to us, was courageous it was also correct. There was, no doubt, the speculative possibility that the defendant may, on the evidence, have lost his self-control. But, in our judgment, despite the views taken by both experienced counsel in the court below and despite their submissions made to this Court, there was no sufficient material, gauged by Lord Steyn’s yardstick, which would have justified the judge in leaving the issue of provocation to the jury. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.’

Rose VP, Leveson LJJ, Tugendhat J
[2003] EWCA Crim 3486
Homicide Act 1957 3
DoubtedRegina v Rossiter CACD 1992
The defendant was charged with a murder. The very manner of the killing suggested that he was at the time of the killing in a state of uncontrolled frenzy. However, Russell LJ said: ‘We take the law to be that wherever there is material which is . .
PreferredRegina v Acott HL 12-Mar-1997
Provocation is not an issue in murder until evidence is given which takes the issues beyond a mere refuted cross examination. If there was ‘insufficient material for a jury to find that it is a reasonable possibility that there was specific . .
CitedRegina v Jones CACD 22-Oct-1999
Roch LJ said: ‘Trial judges are inevitably aware that the giving of a provocation direction must tend to undermine lines of defence such as those which were advanced on behalf of the appellant in this case. It is unlikely that a person who has lost . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.526718