Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

21 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
R v Duffy 1949
J Devlin - "P is sm act or series of acts, dn by the dead man to the accused, which wd cause in any reasonable person, and actually causes in the accused a sudden and temporary loss of self-control, rendering the accused so subject to passion as to make him or her for the moment not master of his mind"
Modified by s3 Homicide Act 1957
Two-fold test:
1. was D provoked to lose his self-control? [subjective]
2. was the P enough t make a reasonable man do as he did? [objective]
R v Doughty [1986]
D killed his baby/CLAIMED-provoked by persistent crying. Appeal: held to be a misdirection for the trial judge to tell the jury that the persistent crying of a 17 day old baby cld nt constitute provocation, and quashed the murder conviction/a conviction for mans-er. The jury shld hv bn directed 2 consider how the reasonable man wld hv responded.
R v Thornton [1992](battered wife)
P can b a result of conduct over a period of time - the loss of control mst b sudden and temporary not immediate
R v Ahluwaliah [1992]
Vof domestic violence for many years. Husband hd argued with her and promised to beat the following morning. After he hd fallen asleep, D poured petrol over him and set him alight, causing burns frm which he died. Convicted of murder following the trial judge's direction to the jury in accordance with Duffy. The CA:the trial judge hd rightly stressed to the jury that provocation was only available 2a Dwho killed whilst suffering from a sudden loss of self-control, and that s3 of the Homicide Act 1957 hd nt bn intended by P-t to affect the operation of the test in Duffy [1949]. retrial/defence of dim respon-ty including the effect of "battered woman syndrome"/convicted of manslaughter.
DPP v Camplin [1978]
R v Smith [2000]
R v Clarke 1991
R v Gross 1913
R v Pearson 1992
R v Baillie 1995
Holmes v DPP 1946
words alone, save the very exceptional, were insufficient
R v Johnson [1989] (self-induced provocation)
Jersey v Holley [2005] PC
The reasonable man test might act harshly on a defendant with a mental abnormality.

Section 2 should not be distorted to accommodate the types of case for which section 3 was specifically enacted.

Therefore the accused should be judged against an inflexible, constant and objective standard. This is something that many inadequate defendants may never be able to achieve and to that extent the test may deprive many of a fair defence, battered women in particular. The law of provocation is now uncertain and probably back where it was 25 years ago.
Luc Thiet Thuan v R [1996]
D robbed ex-girlfriend/ stabbed 2 death. Claimed she taunted him about his sexual inadequacy. Brain damage/several times responded irritably 2 only minor provocation.
Held:objective tst.
Individual peculiarities of D affecting his power of self-control should not, as such, be taken into account for the purposes of that test.
R v Davies 1975
(Lord Diplock)
The judge shld state what the Q-n is using the very terms of d section. He shld then explain 2 them that reasonable man referred 2 in d section is a person having d power of self-control 2 b expected of an ordinary person of d sex and age of d accused, bt in other respects sharing such as d accused's characteristics as they think wld affect d gravity f d P to him"
R v Smith [Morgan] 2000
HL: jury shl hv bn directed 2 ask d Q-n-whether d P ws sufficient 2 mk a man, suffering from that depression, lose his self control. Lord Hoffman-not all personal characteristics were acceptable - back to d old law!!!
R v James; R v Karimi 2006
R v Mancini 1942
R v Letenock 1917
Drunken mistake may negative the mens rea for murder.
Q-n for d jury shld b-whether d P can b regarded as a sufficient ground for d loss of self control and in answering d Q-n D shld b judged with due regard 2 all circumstances including any disability, physical or mental from which he suffered. This wld remove the objective tst and simplify matters