- Published on
Kembaraxtra-Case Law-Morhall (1995) - Provocation & Manslaughter
Citation: Morhall (1995)
Area of Law: Provocation, Manslaughter, Murder, Objective Test
Facts:
Citation: Morhall (1995)
Area of Law: Provocation, Manslaughter, Murder, Objective Test
Facts:
- Defendant (D) was addicted to glue sniffing.
- Victim (V) persistently nagged D about his glue-sniffing habit.
- D killed V.
- Whether D should be convicted of murder or manslaughter based on the defense of provocation.
- D was found guilty of manslaughter, not murder.
- The "reasonable person" is a hypothetical individual.
- Possesses the expected level of self-control of an ordinary person of the same age and sex as the defendant.
- Crucially: The reasonable person also shares characteristics of the defendant that the jury believes affect the gravity of the provocation in the defendant's specific situation.
- The jury must consider the "entire actual situation" including:
- D's habitual glue-sniffing.
- The victim's taunts related to this habit.
- The question for the jury: Would a reasonable person (with the self-control of someone of D's age and sex, and the characteristic of being a habitual glue sniffer who is taunted about it) have been provoked to act as the defendant did?
- Morhall expands the characteristics that can be attributed to the "reasonable person" in the objective test for provocation.
- The jury can consider characteristics that make the defendant more vulnerable to the specific provocation.
- This allows for a more contextual and individualized assessment of whether the provocation was sufficient to reduce murder to manslaughter.
0 Comments