Attorney General for Jersey v Holley
A specially constituted Privy Council of nine judges declined to follow a House of Lords decision on provocation.
Facts
Mr Holley, a chronic alcoholic, killed his girlfriend with an axe after she told him she had just had sex with another man. He was convicted of murder in Jersey. He argued that the jury should have been told to consider whether a person with his characteristics, including his alcoholism, would have lost self control. In R v Smith (Morgan) [2001] 1 AC 146, the House of Lords had held that the jury could take into account the defendant's characteristics when deciding whether the loss of self control was reasonable.
Legal principle
The Privy Council, sitting as a board of nine, held by a majority of six to three that the defendant's characteristics could be taken into account only in deciding the gravity of the provocation, not the standard of self control expected, so the conviction was upheld. The majority declined to follow R v Smith (Morgan), holding that it had misinterpreted the Homicide Act 1957, which applied in Jersey in identical terms. Because nine of the twelve Law Lords had sat, and the majority expressly said that their decision stated the law of England and Wales, the case raised the question whether English courts should follow it in preference to a House of Lords decision.
Related cases on judicial precedent
- Austin v Southwark London Borough Council [2010] UKSC 28, [2011] 1 AC 355
- British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877
- Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027
- Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910
- Davis v Johnson [1979] AC 264
- Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council [1999] 2 AC 349
- Knauer v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 9, [2016] AC 908
- Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd [1976] AC 443
Studying english legal system? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
