The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. The deceased had been supplying his sons with drugs. On the day in question he learned that the supplier had threatened violence against one son for buying drugs elsewhere. He was drunk. He went to the victim’s house taking with him a sawn off shotgun and a cut throat razor. He found him and inflicted serious injuries with the razor. The victim ran off and he chased him and shot at him twice. The actual cause of death was material dislodged from a fence by the shot which in turn hit and killed the victim. He sought to argue provocation, in the form of a sudden and temporary loss of control triggered by hearing of the threats to his son. The judge decided that there was no evidence of such a loss of control to put to the jury.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The judge’s view was too restrictive. The idea under the 1957 Act was to move responsibility for deciding whether there was provocation to the jury, and away from the judge. Though the defendce might be optimistic, the court had been referred to not dissimilar cases where the jury had found provocation.
Henry LJ
[1995] 2 Cr App R 31
Homicide Act 1957 3
England and Wales
Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.225460 br>