Lee Chun-Chuen alias Lee Wing-Cheuk v The Queen; Lee Chun-Chuen alias Lee Wing-Cheuk v R

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date1962
Date1962
Year1962
CourtPrivy Council

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
172 cases
  • Da Costa v R
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date
  • Dayal v State
    • Fiji
    • Court of Appeal (Fiji)
    • 4 October 2018
    ...before there was time for his passion to cool. These elements as per the decision of Lord Devlin in Lee Chun-Chuen —y- R [1963] 1 AER 73, [1963] AC 220 are not detached. Their relationship to each otherparticularly in point of time is of importance. This necessitates me to examine in detail......
  • Mohammed (Fazal) v The State
    • United Kingdom
    • Privy Council
    • Invalid date
  • R v Acott
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 20 February 1997
    ...resulting in a loss of self control, there is simply no issue of provocation to be considered by the jury: Lee Chun-Chuen v. The Queen [1963] A.C. 220, 229, per Lord Devlin. 23 Standing back from the minutiae of section 3 A.J. Ashworth (now Professor Ashworth) described the core features of......
  • Get Started for Free
9 books & journal articles
  • Cases referred to in 1963
    • Nigeria
    • DSC Publications Online Nigerian Supreme Court Cases. 1963 Preliminary Sections
    • 11 November 2022
    ...90 Lawal & Ors. v. Youman & Ors. (1961) All N.L.R. 245, (F.S.C.); (1959) W.N.L.R. 155 (High Court). 109 Lee Chun-Chuen v. Regina (1963) 1 All E.R. 73, 79. 265 Liadi Giwa v. Bisiriyu 0. Erinmilokun (1961) All N.L.R. 294, 296. 90 London C.C. v. Cattermoles (Garages) Ltd. 1953 2 A.E.R. 582. 5 ......
  • Codifying the Law on Evidential Burdens
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 72-4, August 2008
    • 1 August 2008
    ...by pointing to material in the prosecutioncase that supports the defence or, at least, ‘induces a reasonable doubt’: Lee Chun-Chuen v R [1963] AC 220 at 229, per Lord Devlin. For example, evidence adducedby the prosecution in support of a charge of ‘murder’ may suggest a defence ofprovocati......
  • The Merits of Ambiguity: Provocation from the Irish Perspective
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 87-2, April 2023
    • 1 April 2023
    ...following on from MacEoin26. Mancini v DPP [1942] AC 1; Holmes v DPP [1946] AC 588; Bedder v DPP [1954] 1 WLR 1119.27. Lee Chun-Chuen v R [1963] AC 220; Moffa v R (1977) 138 CLR 601.28. [1978] IR 27 at 34.29. [1978] IR 27 at 32.30. [1977] 138 CLR 601 at 625.31. [1978] IR 27 at 34.32. Above ......
  • Some perspectives on provocation and domestic killing
    • Barbados
    • Caribbean Law Review No. 2-1, June 1992
    • 1 June 1992
    ...before the death, but Lord Widgery C.J. in the Court of 40 The Independent, 2 July 1990. 41 Per Lord Devlin in Lee Chun Omen v. R. [1963] 1 All E.R. 73, 79. 42 At p. 238. 43 [1972] 2 All E.R. 1328. Appeal described this as "too generous". 44 There is a very obvious reason for this approach.......
  • Get Started for Free