Hey! Sign in to get help with your study questionsNew here? Join for free to post

Can Provocation cases be used for Loss of Control?

Announcements Posted on
Why bother with a post grad course - waste of time? 17-10-2016
    • Thread Starter

    All year my teacher taught us Loss of Control using a combination of cases since the 2009 Act and previous cases on Provocation (e.g. R v Ahluwalia, R v Thornton). However, RIGHT before we left for study leave, literally the last lesson, he said we can't actually use provocation on our exam. WTF??

    Anyone have any info on this? Can we apply provocation laws to loss of control in the exam?

    Provocation is neither a full nor partial defence. Loss of control, however, is.

    If it's in your syllabus as being a valid defence then use it, but in practice it doesn't wash.

    I've always been told that you can use provocation cases for loss of control as long as you identify in your answer that the cases occurred before the coroners and justice act 2009 was passed so would have originally been applied to provocation

    I'd only use them if they are relevant to loss of control.

    Answers generally provided very encouragingevidence that students have begun to come to terms with the greater detail and precision requiredby the statutory provisions which define the new defence of loss of control and the amendeddefence of diminished responsibility when compared with their respective predecessors. Yet therewere still hints of confusion with the old law. For example, students often continued to attributerules on time delay and ‘revenge’ in loss of control to cases such as Baillie and Ibrams andGregory rather than to the very specific statements in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Suchcases can now only be factual examples raising interesting issues of how the new law would haveapplied. Similarly, the ultimate objective test in loss of control no longer cites a comparison with the‘reasonable man’ and nor is the new test of a person ‘of D's sex and age, with a normal degree oftolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D’ attributable to cases such as Camplinand Luc Thiet Thuan, no matter to what extent derived from them. For the future, it may beadvisable to note the words of Lord Thomas CJ in Gurpinar, Kojo-Smith [2015], “It should rarelybe necessary to look at cases decided under the old law of provocation. When it is necessary, thecases must be considered in the light of the fact that the defence of loss of control is a defencedifferent to provocation and is fully encompassed within the statutory provisions. As has beenfrequently observed, the law does not develop in an accessible and coherent manner if reliancecontinues to be placed on cases that arise under a repealed or superseded law, unless there isgood reason to do so.”
Write a reply…


Submit reply


Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: June 20, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Would you want to know what your pet is thinking about you?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.