Regina v Raven: CACD 1982

The 22-year old defendant had a mental age of 9 years. He said it was inappropriate when judging the availability of the defence of provocation to a charge of murder to ignore that fact. The Recorder of London ruled that, having regard to the test of the reasonable man in Camplin, in order to attribute to the reasonable man the age and other characteristics of the accused the jury should be directed to consider the reasonable man as having lived the same life as the accused of 22 years but with the retarded development and mental age of the accused.


[1982] Crim LR 51


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHer Majestys Attorney General for Jersey v Holley PC 15-Jun-2005
(Jersey) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder, claiming a misdirection on the law of provocation. A chronic alcoholic, he had admitted killing his girlfriend with an axe. Nine law lords convened to seek to reconcile conflicting decisions . .
CitedLuc Thiet Thuan v The Queen PC 2-Apr-1996
(Hong Kong) On a trial for murder the defendant relied on the defences of diminished responsibility and provocation. Medical evidence showed the defendant suffered from brain damage and was prone to respond to minor provocation by losing his . .
CitedRegina v Parker CACD 25-Feb-1997
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder, saying that his defence of provocation should have been left for the jury.
Held: Not following Luc, it was open to admit relevant evidence on the defendant’s capacity for self-control. Having . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.228011