Join TSR now and get all your revision questions answeredSign up now

Provocation / Luc Thiet Thuan Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    hello,
    Im unsure exactly what was held by the Privy council in Luc Thiet Thuan (1996) and the court of appeal in the cases of Newell/Ahluwalia/Dryden/Thornton/Humphreys.

    From what I understand Luc Thiet Thuan basically confirmed Camplin and Morhall and the distinction between those characteristics which bear on the gravity of the provocation and those which concern D's level of self-control. From what I can see though this is the same as in the Court of Appeal cases, although perhaps less explicit. However, in one textbook it says that Lord Goff (delivering the majority judgement in Luc) said that relied too heavily on Newell.(??)

    Also, in the Storey/Lidbury textbook it says "In Luc a majority of the Privy Council disagreed with this line of cases and held that psychological characteristics were not relevant in the context of provocation - and should be left exclusively to DR." However, to me this seems plain confused. In Luc they were concerned about maintaining the distinction between DR and Provocation but not when the psychological characteristic is relevant to the gravity of the provocation. Isnt this completely in line with all those cases as well as Camplin???

    Also, on http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mo...uan%20v%20R%20[1996]%20PC
    it says "R v Newell (1980), R v Ahluwalia [1992], R v Dryden [1995] and R v Humphreys [1995] doubted." without any explanation that I can see.

    thanks for any help
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sjb123)
    hello,
    Im unsure exactly what was held by the Privy council in Luc Thiet Thuan (1996) and the court of appeal in the cases of Newell/Ahluwalia/Dryden/Thornton/Humphreys.

    From what I understand Luc Thiet Thuan basically confirmed Camplin and Morhall and the distinction between those characteristics which bear on the gravity of the provocation and those which concern D's level of self-control. From what I can see though this is the same as in the Court of Appeal cases, although perhaps less explicit. However, in one textbook it says that Lord Goff (delivering the majority judgement in Luc) said that relied too heavily on Newell.(??)

    Also, in the Storey/Lidbury textbook it says "In Luc a majority of the Privy Council disagreed with this line of cases and held that psychological characteristics were not relevant in the context of provocation - and should be left exclusively to DR." However, to me this seems plain confused. In Luc they were concerned about maintaining the distinction between DR and Provocation but not when the psychological characteristic is relevant to the gravity of the provocation. Isnt this completely in line with all those cases as well as Camplin???

    Also, on http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mo...uan%20v%20R%20[1996]%20PC
    it says "R v Newell (1980), R v Ahluwalia [1992], R v Dryden [1995] and R v Humphreys [1995] doubted." without any explanation that I can see.

    thanks for any help
    THe privy council held that psychological characteristics were not relevant in the context of provocation and should be left to diminished responsibility << may not help .. but hey!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    sorry that was regarding the case of Luc Thiet Thuan 1997.. sorry i wasn't clear what that comment was for..
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply
Updated: June 14, 2006
Poll
Liquorice: Love it, or loathe it?

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

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