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?
Can Provocation cases be used for Loss of Control? Watch
- Thread Starter
- 18-06-2016 03:19
Offline19ReputationRep:Community AssistantPS Reviewer
- Community Assistant
- PS Reviewer
- 18-06-2016 17:56
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.
- 19-06-2016 13:37
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
- 19-06-2016 14:07
I'd only use them if they are relevant to loss of control.
- 20-06-2016 15:58
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 , “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.”