Front | Back |
R-v- Pearson
|
The provocation doesn't have to be directed at the defendant.
|
R-v-Duffty
|
The loss of self control must be sudden and temporary
|
R-v- Ahluwalia
|
A 'cooling off' period is not a matter of law but is evidence that the jury can consider
|
R-v- Acott
|
Would the reasonable man do as the defendant did - was the response in proportion to the level of provocation
|
R-v- James and Karini
|
Confirmation that the case of Holley that the characteristics of sex and age with 'ordinary' powers of self control may be consiidered
|
R-v- Dietschmann
|
Did the mental abnormality, disregarding intoxication, substantially impair the defendan's actions.
|
R-v-Byrne
|
A state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the resasonable man who find it abnormal
|
R-v-Tandy
|
Drunkeness is not an abnormaility, whereas alcoholism that damages the brain and results in in a failure to resist the impulse to drink is
|
R-v- Lambert
|
The defence must prove diminished responsibility on a balance of probabilities. Evidence from at least two medical experts is needed
|
R-v- Sutcliffe
|
Where a man is accussed of a notorious string of killings, on the grounds of public policy he should bear the label of 'murderer' and any diminished responsibility will not be considered.
|