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 control of himself is acting in defence of another. It is more likely that such a person will have intended to kill or to cause really serious physical harm. For that reason a judge should not give a direction on provocation where evidence of provoking conduct by the deceased, or evidence that such conduct caused a loss of self-control by a defendant, is minimal or fanciful. To repeat the words of Lord Steyn, there has to be evidence of ‘specific provoking conduct resulting in a loss of control’.’
Judges:
Roch LJ
Citations:
Unreported, 22 October 1999
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.228493