James, R v [2006] EWCA Crim 14 (25 January 2006)

James, R v [2006] EWCA Crim 14 (25 January 2006)

In the exceptional circumstances where all nine Lords of Appeal in Ordinary sitting in the Privy Council in Holley agreed that the majority judgment definitively resolved the question of English law on provocation, and where the majority constituted half the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, the Court of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Crim 14
Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: James; Appellant: Karimi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Judgment on Appeal From Crown Court Convictions
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Homicide, Provocation, Precedent, Partial Defences, Murder, Manslaughter
Criminal Law Homicide Provocation Precedent Partial Defences Murder Manslaughter

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

James

Appellant

Karimi

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Judgment on Appeal From Crown Court Convictions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal should follow the House of Lords decision in R v Smith (Morgan) or the Privy Council decision in Attorney General for Jersey v Holley as the definitive statement of English law on provocation as a partial defence to murder
  2. 2 Whether a decision of the Privy Council can take precedence over a decision of the House of Lords in English law, and in what circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

In the exceptional circumstances where all nine Lords of Appeal in Ordinary sitting in the Privy Council in Holley agreed that the majority judgment definitively resolved the question of English law on provocation, and where the majority constituted half the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, the Court of Appeal is justified in preferring the Privy Council decision in Holley over the earlier House of Lords decision in Smith (Morgan) as the authoritative statement of English law. Accordingly, the law of provocation is as stated by the majority in Holley: the objective standard is that of a person with ordinary powers of self-control, not one modified by the defendant's individual...

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Each appeal is dismissed.
  • Application for permission to appeal to the House of Lords is refused.