||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 69 (Aug)
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffman and Lord Clyde
||Peter Carter QC and Annabel Pilling (instructed by Oury Clark) for the appellant.
||James Dingemans (instructed by Charles Russell) for the respondent.
||18 July 2001
Privy council - Criminal appeal - Special leave to appeal - Appellant giving evidence of provocation but not using it as defence - Court of Appeal not leaving issue of provocation to jury to consider - Court of Appeal applying proviso and dismissing appeal on grounds that no miscarriage of justice had occurred - Whether proviso properly applied in circumstances of case.
Section 9(1) of the Offences Against the Person Act of Antigua, (as amended), provided that, where on a charge of murder there was evidence that the person charged was provoked to lose self-control, the question whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as he had done should be left to be determined by the jury. In the instant case, even though the appellant's evidence at trial had made references to provocation, the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal had applied the proviso to s 39(1) of the West Indies Associated States Supreme Court Act 1969, and dismissed the appeal without giving the jury a chance to consider that issue. In those circumstances, the proviso had been wrongly applied and the case would be remitted to the Court of Appeal in order that that court might impose an appropriate sentence.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary