- Published on
KembaraXtra-Newell (1980) - Provocation & Intoxication
Case Facts:
Case Facts:
- Defendant (D): Chronic alcoholic.
- Victim (V): Friend of D.
- Incident: D killed V by battery after V insulted D's former cohabitee.
- D was found guilty of murder.
- Reasonableness Assessment (Following Camplin): When assessing the reasonableness of D's actions under provocation, the jury can consider certain characteristics of the accused.
- Admissible Characteristics:
- Immutable Characteristics: Characteristics related to the gravity of the provocation (e.g., race) are admissible.
- Inadmissible Characteristics:
- Characteristics related to the level of self-control are not admissible. Examples include:
- Alcoholism
- Grief
- Mental Deficiency
- Weak-mindedness
- Characteristics related to the level of self-control are not admissible. Examples include:
- Direct Connection Requirement (Referencing McGregor (1962)):
- A "direct connection" must exist between the provocative words/conduct and the characteristic the defendant seeks to use to justify a departure from the "ordinary man" test.
- North J (in McGregor): "In short, there must be some direct connection between the provocative words or conduct and the characteristic sought to be invoked as warranting some departure from the ordinary man test."
- Focus on Gravity vs. Self-Control: The case highlights the distinction between characteristics that affect the perceived severity of the provocation versus those that affect the defendant's ability to control their reaction. Only the former are considered relevant to the reasonableness assessment.
- Intoxication as a Factor: Newell, as an alcoholic, could not have his condition taken into account for the level of self-control in his reaction to the victim's words.
0 Comments