LAW

Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law- R v Clarke (1991)
I. Case Overview
  • Citation: R v Clarke (1991)
  • Area of Law: Causation in Criminal Law, Murder
II. Facts of the Case
  • Victim (V): Informed her boyfriend (D) she was having an abortion.
  • Defendant (D):
    • Reacted violently upon hearing the news.
    • Initially hit and strangled V.
    • Subsequently, in a state of panic, electrocuted V with live wires.
    • The strangling may have killed V.
III. Legal Issue
  • Did D's actions constitute a single continuing act of violence leading to V's death, thus establishing causation for murder?
IV. Court Holding
  • D was found guilty of murder.
V. Reasoning and Key Principles
  • Continuing Act of Violence: If the actions leading to death are part of one continuous assault, the jury should consider all actions of the accused when determining causation.
  • Causation: The court will look at the entire chain of events to determine if the defendant's actions caused the victim's death.
  • Remoteness: Actions too far removed from the cause of death will not be considered (e.g., disposing of the body).
VI. Significance
  • Illustrates the principle of causation in cases involving a series of actions by the defendant.
  • Emphasizes that a continuous act of violence, even with intervening acts, can still establish causation for murder.
  • Highlights the importance of assessing the proximity of actions to the ultimate cause of death.



Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Thornton (No. 2) (1995)
Context: This case is a sequel to Thornton (No. 1) (1992). New evidence emerged concerning the defendant's mental state.
Key Facts:
  • Defendant (D) now presented evidence of:
    • Personality disorder.
    • Suffering from "battered woman syndrome."
Held:
  • D was found not guilty of murder. A retrial was ordered.
  • Crucial Point: Even with "battered woman syndrome," D must demonstrate a sudden and temporary loss of self-control at the time of the killing to successfully argue provocation.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth's Explanation of the Relevance of "Battered Woman Syndrome":
  1. Background Context: "Battered woman syndrome" provides essential background context to the actus reus. It helps the jury understand the situation.
  2. Trigger for Loss of Control: The jury may be more inclined to find a sudden loss of control, even if triggered by seemingly minor events, given the defendant's history of abuse. The accumulated abuse can make even small triggers sufficient for a loss of control.
  3. Defendant's Characteristics: "Battered woman syndrome" may have significantly altered the defendant's personality. This is relevant to the jury's assessment of the second question regarding provocation (objective test of gravity of provocation).



Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Ahluwalia (1993) - Voluntary Manslaughter & Provocation
Case Facts:
  • Defendant (D) experienced 10 years of spousal violence and degradation.
  • D threw petrol in her husband's bedroom and set it alight, resulting in his death.
Court Ruling:
  • The original murder conviction was overturned, and a retrial was ordered.
Key Legal Principles (Per Lord Taylor C.):
  1. Parliamentary Authority:
    • Only Parliament, not the courts, can introduce a provocation defence for "slow-burn" reactions to long-term spousal violence (as opposed to immediate reactions).
  2. Subjective Element & Delayed Reaction:
    • A delayed reaction to provocation does not automatically negate the subjective element of the defence (i.e., "sudden and temporary loss of self-control").
    • Crucial Requirement: The "sudden and temporary loss of self-control" must exist at the time of the killing.
  3. Impact of Delay & Deliberation:
    • Longer delays between the provocation and the act of killing, coupled with evidence of deliberation, make it more difficult for the defence to prove provocation.
    • The prosecution is more likely to successfully negate provocation in such circumstances.
  4. Absence of Psychological Evidence:
    • No evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or "Battered Woman Syndrome" was presented at the original trial.



Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Bedder (1954)
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.
Issue:
  • 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.
Holding:
  • 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.
Reasoning (Per Lord Simonds LC):
  • 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.
Significance:
  • 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.




Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Provocation & Retaliation - Brown (1972)
Case Citation: Brown (1972) (Court of Appeal - England & Wales)
Key Issue: Relevance of the manner of retaliation in assessing the "reasonableness" element of the provocation defence.
Facts:
  • Defendant (D) accused his wife of adultery.
  • A violent struggle ensued.
  • D claimed to have blacked out immediately before fatally cutting his wife's throat with a razor.
Holding:
  • D was found guilty of murder.
  • The manner of retaliation to the alleged provocation is a relevant factor in determining the objective reasonableness of the defendant's actions. This confirms that the mode of retaliation has to be a proportionate response to the provocation.
Legal Principle Articulated by Talbot J.:
  • When considering the objective "reasonable man" test in provocation, the jury must consider the relationship between the accused's actions and the level of provocation that they experienced.
Quote:
"... a jury should be instructed to consider the relationship of the accused's acts to the provocation when asking themselves the question "Was it enough to make a reasonable man do as he did?"
Significance:
  • Clarifies that the objective test for provocation involves assessing whether a reasonable person, subjected to the same provocation, would have reacted in a similar manner AND with a similar level of violence. The mode of retaliation has to be proportionate to the nature of provocation.
  • Emphasizes the importance of proportionality in the response to provocation.
Implications for Provocation Defence:
  • The defence of provocation is less likely to succeed if the defendant's response is disproportionate to the provocation, regardless of whether the defendant subjectively lost control.
  • The Brown (1972) precedent can be used to argue that even if some level of retaliation may have been reasonable to the provocation, the specific actions undertaken by the defendant were excessive and unreasonable in the given circumstances.


I
Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Woollin (1998) - Homicide: Intention and Murder
Case Summary:
  • Facts: The defendant (D) lost his temper and threw his three-month-old son onto a hard surface, causing fatal skull fractures.
  • Held: D was not guilty of murder.
Key Legal Principle (Per Lord Steyn):
  • Foresight of a substantial risk of causing death is not sufficient to establish the intent required for murder.
  • Equating substantial risk with intention "blurs the line between intention and recklessness, and hence between murder and manslaughter."
Guidance on Nedrick Direction (Refinement of Nedrick (1986)):
  • The Nedrick direction remains a valuable tool for trial judges in cases involving oblique intent.
Specific Amendments to the Model Nedrick Direction:
  • (A) "To Find" vs. "To Infer": The words "to find" should replace "to infer" in the direction.
  • (B) Removal of Sentence: The first sentence of point (B) in the Nedrick direction "does not form part of the model direction" and should be omitted.




Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Walker and Hayles (1990) CA: Attempted Murder & Intention
Facts:
  • Walker and Hayles threw the victim (V) from a third-floor balcony.
  • V survived the fall.
Issue:
  • Were Walker and Hayles guilty of attempted murder? This hinged on proving mens rea (intention to kill).
Held:
  • The Court of Appeal held that Walker and Hayles were guilty of attempted murder.
Key Principle Established (per Lloyd LJ):
  • The court addressed the degree of probability of death required to infer an intention to kill, particularly in light of previous case law (Hancock and Nedrick).
  • Departure from Absolute Certainty: The court acknowledged that legal judgments often involve degrees of probability, not absolute certainty.
  • Rejection of "Virtual Certainty" as Sole Test: The court rejected the notion that intention to kill can only be inferred when death is a "virtual certainty."
  • "Very High Degree of Probability" Acceptable: The court stated that using the phrase "very high degree of probability" is not a misdirection to the jury, provided:
    • The line between intention and recklessness is clearly maintained.
    • The jury is instructed that it is their role to infer intention based on the degree of probability in the specific case.
Implications for Understanding Mens Rea for Attempted Murder:
  • This case clarifies that while a high degree of probability of death is required to infer intent to kill for attempted murder, "virtual certainty" is not the sole threshold.
  • The jury must assess the specific facts and circumstances to determine if the defendant intended to kill, considering the probability of death resulting from their actions.
  • Clear distinction must be made to the jury of intention vs recklessness when discussing probability of outcomes.
Note: This case focuses on the mens rea (mental element) required for attempted murder. It establishes that a "very high degree of probability" of death resulting from the defendant's actions can be sufficient evidence from which a jury can infer an intention to kill, without needing to prove virtual certainty.



Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law- Vickers (1957) CA
During D's burglary of V's shop, D was discovered by V, whereupon D
struck V with several blows. V eventually died from shock due to general
injuries.
Held D was guilty of murder, because:
... he has killed a person with the necessary malice aforethought being implied
from the fact that he intended to do grievous bodily harm ... in considering the
construction of s 1(1) [of the Homicide Act 1957], it is impossible to say that the
doing of grievous bodily harm is the other offence which is referred to in the
first line and a half of the sub-section [that is, which abolishes constructive
malice. It must be shown that independently of the fact that the accused is
committing another offence, that the act which caused the death was done with
malice aforethought as implied by law Iper Lord Goddard CJ].


Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law- Ibrams and Gregory (1981) CA - Provocation & Revenge
Case Citation: Ibrams and Gregory (1981)
Facts:
  • I, G, and W were repeatedly bullied and provoked by V.
  • A week prior to the incident, I, G, and W plotted to attack V to stop the bullying.
  • I and G attacked V in his sleep, intending to break his arms and legs.
  • V died as a result of the attack.
Legal Issue:
  • Whether the prior bullying by V constituted sufficient provocation to reduce the charge of murder to manslaughter for I and G.
Holding:
  • I and G were found guilty of murder. The defense of provocation was rejected.
Reasoning (per Lawton LJ):
  • Absence of Triggering Event: Nothing occurred on the night of the killing that caused I to lose self-control. The attack was premeditated.
  • Revenge vs. Provocation: The pre-existing plan to attack V, coupled with I's statement that "all the past came to his mind," indicated a desire for revenge, not a sudden loss of self-control.
  • Time for Reflection: The court emphasized the incompatibility of revenge and provocation.
    • The conscious formulation of a desire for revenge implies a period of thought and reflection.
    • This negates the "sudden temporary loss of self-control," which is the core element of the provocation defense (citing Devlin J in Duffy (1949)).
Key Principle:
  • A pre-existing plan to retaliate for past acts of provocation, coupled with a considered desire for revenge, is inconsistent with the defense of provocation, which requires a sudden and temporary loss of self-control. The passage of time and the formation of a revenge plot indicates deliberation, negating the element of spontaneity crucial for provocation.
Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Thornton (No. 1) (1992) CA
Key Facts:
  • Defendant (D): Battered wife, subjected to ongoing abuse by her husband.
  • Incident: Husband, intoxicated, verbally abused D ("whore") and threatened to kill her in her sleep. D, after obtaining a carving knife for protection, stabbed him, resulting in death.
  • Initial Statement: D initially told police she wanted to kill him.
Legal Issue:
  • Whether the history of domestic violence could be considered in determining whether the defendant acted in the heat of passion due to provocation, thus reducing the charge from murder to manslaughter.
Holding:
  • D was found guilty of murder.
Reasoning:
  • "Sudden and Temporary Loss of Self-Control" (Duffy (1949)): Provocation requires a sudden and temporary loss of self-control.
  • Application to Domestic Violence Cases (Beldam LJ): In cases with a history of domestic violence, the critical question is whether the defendant was deprived of self-control "at the moment the fatal blow was struck." The jury must assess whether the defendant lost the self-control they had previously been able to exercise.
Key Takeaways:
  • This case highlights the difficulty in applying the traditional "sudden and temporary" loss of self-control requirement to cases involving battered spouses.
  • The court acknowledged the relevance of the history of domestic violence, but emphasized that the loss of control must be present at the moment of the killing.
  • The case emphasizes that the relevant question is whether the defendant had lost the self-control that they had previously been able to exercise.



Picture

Author

Learn the fact about law