The present partial defence of provocation in the English law has its origin in the common law system but has been, since 1957, intruded into by the statute with the introduction of the Homicide Act. The doctrine of provocation has evolved into a broad law brought about by the…
Download file to see previous pages...
A proposed bill however is pending in Parliament which seeks to remedy the ills of the law. Called the Coroner and Justice Bill, the proposed law is set to abolish provocation as a partial defence and introduce the ‘loss of control’ law in its lieu, using more stringent and specific language that will hopefully narrow down the application of the law and remove the hindrance to a more just application of the partial defence.
The doctrine of provocation is a common law doctrine, which has been altered by the statutory law. As embodied in the Homicide Act of 1957, the doctrine works to serve as a mitigating factor in the crime of murder. Section 3 of the said Act specifically delegates the task of determining its existence to the jury in murder cases. Thus:
There are, therefore, two things that a jury must do relative to the above provision: determine whether the defendant acted out of loss of self-control, and; whether a reasonable man would have similarly acted as the offender. The case of R v Camplin  2 All ER defined a reasonable man as “a person having the power of self-control, to be expected of an ordinary person of the same age and sex as the accused, but in other aspects sharing such of the accused’s characteristics as they think would affect the gravity of the provocation to him” (qtd Slapper & Kelly pp 108-109).
The doctrine of provocation acts as a partial defence, which if successful results in partial responsibility or in simple terms, reduces murder to manslaughter. The doctrine is not applicable to any other kind of offense (Ashworth & Mitchell pp 72-73). Provocation is raised by the defence and the judge himself directs the jury to consider the element. The judge has to determine first the acts done or words uttered that directly affected the defendant’s self-control and provoked him/ her to kill (Stone 68). In the case of R v Cocker  Crim LR 740, for
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Cite this document
(“Criminal defence of provocation Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/miscellaneous/1559515-criminal-defence-of-provocation
(Criminal Defence of Provocation Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 Words)
“Criminal Defence of Provocation Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/miscellaneous/1559515-criminal-defence-of-provocation.
The defence of loss of control is restricted to murder and is unavailable for other offences. It constitutes a partial defence, because on successfully pleading loss of control the defendant while being absolved of murder will be convicted of the lesser offence of manslaughter.1 The previous position, in this regard, was patently unjust, with regard to cases wherein there had been a lapse of time between the provocation and the killing.
Thus there is clear presumption in criminal law that a person would be thought of as innocent and unless a case of satisfying the courts beyond reasonable doubt of criminal liability is proved by the prosecution, the accused would be rendered innocent and the presumption of innocence would be retained.
Olmeda is a store detective employed by Securigard PLC. Mr. Olmeda was on duty on 8 December 2010 when the alleged theft occurred. Witness states that on or about 12.25 hours, he noticed the defendant and was able to identify so-mentioned person as Mr. Joseph Wearn.
(of provocation), then it is for the jury whether it was such that they can attribute the act to the violence of passion naturally arising therefrom, and likely to be aroused thereby in the breast of a reasonable man”1, much discussions have followed and dissenting opinions
The essay analyzes the issue, in which early lawyers had a difficulty in arriving at a clear distinction between homicide committed in self-defence and homicide committed by misfortune. It was accompanied by a confusion between cases of killing in self-defence and killing when under the influence of some physical provocation.
The author states that self-induced intoxication can also be a defence to criminal liability if it is such that the defendant formed an intent during the state of intoxication that he/she would not have formed while sober. However there are limits to the extent to which Smith may rely on the defences of provocation and intoxication.
f the Court of Appeal permitted individuals accused of murder to reuse evidence that their victims’ infidelity towards them was the cause of their losing control and killing the victims.1
Prior to the enactment of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, it had been possible to
Applied to an economy, perfect competitive economy would refer to a free market where there would be existence of the private enterprises and the price would be determined in the economy by the demand and supply in each of the markets. There would be no intervention on part of the government to control the prices or the quantities in the market. A monopoly market is one in which there is a single seller who would have the entire market power and hence the buyers in the market would be the price takers and would have to pay the monopolist-set price in order to purchase the product.
The government responded by initiating the new Act which subsequently became law. The abolished Defence of Provocation provided guidance on cases that involve total loss of control concerning the actions of a second
11 Pages(2750 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Criminal defence of provocation for FREE!