R v Morhall [1995] 3 All ER 659
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:02:44 UTC
The defendant was a glue sniffing addict. When a friend criticised him over the habit, the defendant killed him.
He was convicted of murder and appealed on the grounds that the trial judge failed to mention his habit as an important characteristic in provocation.
CA dismissed his appeal but HL allowed it, saying that his addiction was relevant in deciding how grave the provocation was to him.
This, combined with Camplin, completely abandons the intention of the Homicide Act and the reasonable man test.
RELATED CASES
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
R v Luc Thiet-Thuan
The defendant admitted killing someone but he had a brain damage problem which made the slightest acts provoke him. The judge ruled that such a condition would only be relevant to diminished responsi...
A-G for Jersey v Holley
A man got drunk and had a row with his girlfriend who he killed. He pleaded provocation to be considered in light of his alcoholoism. The deputy bailiff asked them to consider if any particular chara...
R v Lipman
Crime encompasses various unlawful activities, with homicide being a severe offense involving the unlawful killing of another person. Manslaughter, a subset of homicide, typically lacks premeditation...
R v Smith (Morgan James)
Smith (S) stabbed B in a fight about B stealing his carpentry tools and killed him. He had a medical condition that made him react angrily to small provocations. The judge applied the Diplock test, s...
R v Camplin
In the standard of a “reasonable man,” reasonable adult should apply or be adjusted to account for the defendant's age. A critical consideration is the gravity of the provocation and the correspondin...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.