R v Smith (Morgan)
Under the old law of provocation, the jury could take into account the defendant's characteristics in deciding whether his loss of self control was reasonable, a decision later rejected in Holley.
Facts
Mr Smith and his friend were drinking together. Mr Smith accused his friend of stealing his tools, and in an argument stabbed him with a kitchen knife, killing him. He suffered from severe depression. At his trial for murder, he relied on provocation, and the judge directed the jury that his depression was relevant to whether he had been provoked, but not to the standard of self control to be expected of him.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held, by a majority of three to two, that the jury was entitled to take into account the defendant's depression in deciding whether he had shown the degree of self control that could reasonably be expected of him, and quashed his murder conviction. The majority held that the question of what was reasonable was for the jury, who could take into account any characteristic of the defendant that might affect his power of self control. In Attorney General for Jersey v Holley [2005] UKPC 23, a nine judge Privy Council held that Smith (Morgan) was wrongly decided, and the Court of Appeal followed Holley in R v James and Karimi.
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.
