Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Prosecution would have to prove that he was in control and had not been provoked to the point in
which the reasonable man would have acted in the same manner. Whilst the onus would not be on
Boris, the evidence that he did in fact lose self-control, to such a degree, must satisfy the jury . Case
law has provided some clarification as to the defence of provocation. The case of R v Duffy was
referred to as still being good and current law by Lord Goddard C J in R v Whitfield: Provocation is
some act, or series of acts, donewhich would cause any reasonable person, and actually causes in
the accused, a sudden and temporary loss of self control, rendering the accused so subject to passion
as to make him or her for the moment, not master of his mind. Clearly the jury would not only have to
believe that a reasonable person would have lost self-control in his situation, but that at the time Boris
killed Raquel, he was literally out of his mind.
A further consideration needed to be taken by the jury when considering whether Boris was provoked
into killing Raquel, is the character and nature of Boris personally. There has been some legal
argument in recent years as to whether the reasonable man test should be so objective as to not take
any consideration as to the personality characteristics of the defendant. This was resolved in the case
of AG for Jersey v Holley in which it was held that whilst characteristics of a violent temperament or
sensitivity should be considered by the jury, there should be an objective standard of self control based
on the defendants age and sex which must be applied to all . Boris states that his motive for killing
Raquel is that her behaviour was particularly infuriating to him because women should know their
place. Boris being a misogynist does not equal the characteristic of seminal cases in which such
characteristics as being a glue-sniffer were a consideration . S3 of the Homicide Act 1957 does allow
the jury to consider the characteristics of the defendant as they must consider everything said and done
and thus, if a glue sniffer is taunted for his addiction, this should be considered as more of a
provocation that had those words been said to a non-addict. However, it is less clear in Boris case
whether Raquels words should have more of an effect on Boris than other people in his position. This
is partly because Raquels behaviour toward Boris had nothing to do with his being a misogynist.
Furthermore, though there is no case law on misogyny as a characteristic to be considered by a jury, it
is unlikely that this would fall under the same category of abnormal characteristics. Subsequently, it is
highly unlikely that Boris could have this characteristic considered within the issue of provocation.
The question of whether a reasonable person would have acted as Boris did is unlikely to result in a
favourable outcome for Boris. Raquels behaviour was not extreme enough to result in an ordinary
person losing all self control. Again, it would be fairly easy for a prosecutor to persuade the jury that
Boris, as a reasonable person, did not lose all self control. Perhaps more significantly there is little
evidence to suggest that Boris did personally lose all control at all. His reason for killing Raquel, whilst
being extreme, was rationally decided upon. By his own admission, Boris killed her because he found
her behaviour particularly annoying due to her being a woman. He makes no reference in his evidence
of losing control at all. Consequently provocation would not be proven and Boris would still be liable for
murder.
The Defence of Diminished Responsibility
Boris has claimed that he has difficulty controlling his temper due to an old war wound. Arguably, this
could be raised in relation to provocation in that it is an abnormal characteristic. However, this is a
weaker argument than referring to Boris misogyny as characteristics appear to only be applied in
cases in which the provoking act itself relates to the reason for losing self control. This is not the case
in relation to Boris.
The partial defences of Diminished Responsibility would have the same effect upon Boris liability as
Provocation and subsequently would reduce the offence from murder to manslaughter. S6 (b) of The
Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 states Where on trial for murder the accused contendsthat at
that time he was suffering from such abnormality of mind as is specified in subsection (1) of section 2
of the Homicide Acts 1957 (Diminished Responsibility) Again, the onus of proof is upon the
prosecution to disprove that Boris was not suffering from such mental impairment but Boris evidence
must satisfy the jury that he was suffering from a high state of abnormality of mind. Should the
Prosecution accept Boris plea of guilty to Manslaughter on the grounds of Diminished Responsibility it
is likely that a hospital order would be made . There is no evidence as to any psychiatric report on
Boris state of mind but the evidence available does not indicate a wound which results in his mind
being impaired. Rather, it would appear that Boris has a short temper not an abnormality of mind and
subsequently, it is unlikely that Boris could successfully plead Diminished Responsibility.
Request Removal
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK
Essays website then please click on the link below to request removal:
Request the removal of this essay