To decide whether a judge’s duty under section 3 was triggered it was essential to bear in mind that the word ‘provocation’ was used in an active and not a passive sense. Provocation was that which provoked; it was not the state of being in a temper as a result of provocation. It is incumbent on the defence to at least raise some evidence of provocation before the trial judge is obliged to deal with this issue in his summing up.
Judges:
Lord Justice Hirst, Mr Justice Rougier and Mr Justice Mitchell
Citations:
Times 05-Apr-1996, [1997] 2 Cr App R 94
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Van Dongen and Another, Regina v CACD 5-Jul-2005
The defendant brothers appealed convictions for murder. They had pleaded self defence. The injuries on the deceased suggested a substantial number of wounds were inflicted when he was in a curled up defensive post.
Held: The provocation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.86031
