HideShow resource information


- This is a special and partial defence. it is special becasue it is only avaliable to a charge of murder and it is partial because, a successful plea doesn't lead to acquitaal but liabililty being reduced to voluntary manslaughter.

- It is governed by the Homicide Act (1957), Section 3 and it is a common law defence. the burden of proof for provocation is both on the defence and the prosecution. the defence is trying to prove that they have fulfiilled all the elements needed for provocation and the prosecution is trying to prove that the defence has not fulfilled all the elements.

The elements that are needed in order to fulfill provocation are:

-things said or done or both together.

-did the D lose his self control? which is a subjective question.

- would a resonable man with the same charecterisitics as the defendant have acted in such way?


R v Doughty- the actions don't need to be directed at the D directly- the crying of a baby was enough to amount to procation.

R v Pearson-Father actions towars younger brother was enough to amount to provocation.

R v Davies- the actions of a wifes lover was enough to amount to provocation.


the leading case on this is R v Duffy (1949)- the loss of control must be sudden and temporary loss of self control which for that moment renders the D not master of his mind.

Ibrahims and gregory and R v Thornton (no1) (1992)- has to sudden and temporary if it is a time lapse then this is consisitant with revenge and…


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Law of Tort resources »