R v Duffy
The classic definition of provocation as a sudden and temporary loss of self control, under the old common law defence.
Facts
Mrs Duffy suffered years of violence and ill treatment from her husband. One night, after a violent quarrel, she waited until he was asleep and then hit him on the head with a hatchet and a hammer, killing him. She was convicted of murder after the judge directed the jury on the defence of provocation.
Legal principle
The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the conviction and approved the judge's direction. Devlin J had said that provocation is some act, or series of acts, done by the dead man to the accused which would cause in 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. The requirement of a sudden and temporary loss of self control was criticised for not reflecting the situation of abused women who kill after a slow burn. The defence of provocation was replaced by loss of control under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
Related cases on murder and voluntary manslaughter
- Attorney General for Jersey v Holley [2005] UKPC 23, [2005] 2 AC 580
- R v Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889
- R v Asmelash [2013] EWCA Crim 157, [2014] QB 103
- R v Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396
- R v Challen [2019] EWCA Crim 916
- R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2, [2013] QB 1
- R v Dawes; R v Hatter; R v Bowyer [2013] EWCA Crim 322, [2014] 1 WLR 947
- R v Dietschmann [2003] UKHL 10, [2003] 1 AC 1209
Studying criminal law? 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.
