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 provoking conduct resulting in a loss of self-control, there is simply no issue of provocation to be considered by the jury’ and ‘if there is no such evidence, but merely the speculative possibility that there had been an act of provocation, it is wrong for the judge to direct the jury to consider provocation.’ and ‘It remained the duty of the judge to decide whether there was evidence of provoking conduct, which resulted in the defendant losing his self-control. If in the opinion of the judge, even on a view most favourable to the accused, there is insufficient material for a jury to find that it is a reasonable possibility that there was specific provoking conduct resulting in a loss of self-control, there is simply no issue of provocation to be considered by the jury.’

Judges:

Lord Mustill, Lord Nolan, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann

Citations:

Gazette 12-Mar-1997, Times 21-Feb-1997, [1997] UKHL 5, [1997] 1 All ER 706, [1997] 161 JP 368, [1997] 2 Cr App Rep 94, [1997] Crim LR 514, [1997] 1 WLR 306

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Homicide Act 1957 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Acott CACD 5-Apr-1996
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 . .

Cited by:

AppliedRegina v Miao CACD 17-Nov-2003
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. His main defence had been that there had been no intention to kill, but the judge had refused to leave to the jury the possibility of provocation.
Held: There was evidence of potentially . .
CitedVan 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 . .
CitedAdolphus Campbell v The State PC 20-Aug-1999
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. The Board considered whether the Court of Appeal should consider additional medical evidence. He was said to have attacked the deceased, . .
CitedSerrano, Regina v CACD 1-Dec-2006
The defendant had been convicted of murder in 1972. He now appealed on a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission questioning the failure of the judge to direct on provocation. He had killed a girl after they tried but failed to have . .
PreferredMiao, 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.86029