26 May 2016
Leave to appeal granted on the singular legal question whether omission to direct the jury to form a discrete view of the gravity of the provocation on the defendant, given his particular attributes, before applying the objective test under Homicide Ordinance s.4, constitutes a misdirection of law; appellate determination reserved for hearing.
31 Jul 2012
The trial judge correctly directed the jury that psychiatric evidence was relevant to whether the defendant actually lost his self-control and to the assessment of the gravity of provocation to him, but was not relevant to alter the objective ordinary person standard for determining whether a reasonable person might have reacted as he did; there was no misdirection and leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
5 Feb 1998
There was no evidence that the applicant acted under a loss of self-control; the conduct of hiring and negotiating with a paid killer is inconsistent with provocation; therefore the trial judge was correct to refuse to leave provocation to the jury and the application for certification is refused.
12 Mar 1985
The Court held the judge did not err in refusing to leave provocation to the jury because the evidence did not disclose a sudden and temporary loss of self-control; the sequence of conduct, intervals, and indicia of calculation (concealment of knife, use of mother to gain entry, leaving and returning) demonstrated lack of immediacy and rendered provocation untenable as a defence.
26 Nov 1973
The Full Court held the trial judge misdirected the jury by withdrawing provocation: the appellant's account constituted a credible narrative of provocation (insults followed by an attempted physical assault) fit to be left to the jury under s.4 of the Homicide Ordinance; accordingly the conviction for murder was quashed, a verdict of manslaughter substituted and the sentence reduced to five years imprisonment.