- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Bedder (1954)
Citation: Bedder (1954)
Area of Law: Provocation (Loss of Control)
Facts:
Citation: Bedder (1954)
Area of Law: Provocation (Loss of Control)
Facts:
- D (Defendant) attempted sexual intercourse with a prostitute but was impotent.
- The prostitute taunted, punched, slapped, and kicked D in the groin.
- D then stabbed her twice, causing her death.
- Whether the jury should consider D's impotence when assessing the effect of the prostitute's actions on his self-control for the purposes of the defence of provocation.
- D was found guilty of murder.
- The jury should consider the effects of the taunts and violence upon D, but without regard to his sexual impotence.
- The court rejected the argument that D's impotence should be considered as a characteristic when evaluating the provocation.
- Lord Simonds stated it would be illogical to consider an excitable or pugnacious temperament but also consider a physical characteristic like impotence.
- Essentially, the court emphasized that the standard for assessing provocation should be objective, not based on individual vulnerabilities.
- Bedder illustrates the objective element in the defence of provocation (now loss of control). The focus is on how a reasonable person would react, not necessarily how the individual defendant reacted given their specific characteristics (at least in the case of impotence as argued here.)
- This case was decided under the old law of provocation, but the underlying principle regarding objective standards remains relevant to the modern defence of loss of control.
0 Comments