Ellis v R

Ellis v R

The trial judge was correct, under the law as it stood in 1955, to withdraw the issue of provocation from the jury because there was no act of provocation recognised by the common law sufficient to reduce murder to manslaughter. Subsequent statutory changes and the defence of diminished responsibility cannot be applied retrospectively. The conviction is safe.

Parties
Appellant: Ruth Ellis; Respondent: R
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission to the Court of Appeal (criminal Division)
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Murder, Provocation, Diminished Responsibility, Appeals, Homicide
Criminal Law Murder Provocation Diminished Responsibility Appeals Homicide

Case Brief

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ruth Ellis

Appellant

R

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission to the Court of Appeal (criminal Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in withdrawing the issue of provocation from the jury under the law as it stood in 1955
  2. 2 Whether subsequent developments in the law of provocation or the introduction of diminished responsibility should affect the safety of the conviction

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was correct, under the law as it stood in 1955, to withdraw the issue of provocation from the jury because there was no act of provocation recognised by the common law sufficient to reduce murder to manslaughter. Subsequent statutory changes and the defence of diminished responsibility cannot be applied retrospectively. The conviction is safe.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed