LAW

Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Rampharry (1999) PC - Proportionality in Provocation
Case Citation: Rampharry (1999) PC
Facts:
  • The defendant (D) accused his ex-wife of promiscuity.
  • D alleged his ex-wife thrust a knife in his face, leading to a struggle.
  • D admitted to repeatedly stabbing her ("pounding") with the knife.
  • The ex-wife died from chest wounds inflicted by the stabbing.
Issue:
  • Was the defendant guilty of murder? More specifically, was his response to the alleged provocation proportionate?
Holding:
  • The defendant was found guilty of murder.
Reasoning:
  • Even if provocation occurred, the defendant's response was disproportionate.
  • The court, per Sir Leggatt, stated the consideration must be "the reaction to be expected of the ordinary person" regarding whether "the retaliation of the accused must be proportionate to the provocative acts".
  • In other words, the objective element of provocation requires the defendant's reaction to be within the range of what a reasonable person would have done in the circumstances.



Picture
0 Comments

Author

Learn the fact about law