Privy Council
| DOI | 10.1177/002201830206600305 |
| Published date | 01 June 2002 |
| Date | 01 June 2002 |
| Subject Matter | Privy Council |
Privy
Council
Provocation and the Onus of Proof
Michael
Yearwood
vThe Queen [2001] UKPC 31
The deceased was killed by a single stab
wound
to the chest during a
party in St George, Grenada. The defendant was arrested, charged,
found guilty of
the
murder
and
sentenced to death. The defendant's
appeal against conviction to
the
Court of Appeal of Grenada was dis-
missed
but
he was later given special leave
to
appeal as a poor person
to
the
Privy Council.
There
were
a
number
of eyewitnesses to
the
events of
the
evening in
the
course of
which
the
deceased was killed. Several witnesses said
that
they
had
seen
an
argument
between
the
deceased
and
the
appellant.
There was no dispute at the trial
that
the deceased
had
died from a stab
wound
inflicted on
him
by
the
appellant. The appellant gave
an
un-
sworn statement from
the
dock giving his version of
the
events
that
led
up
to
the fatal stabbing. His defences
to
the
charge of
murder
were
provocation, self-defence
and
accident. The trial judge left all three
defences to
the
jury
in his summing-up.
In
the
Court of Appeal it was argued that
the
trial judge
had
mis-
directed the
jury
on the question of specific
intent
and
that,
when
he
was dealing
with
the
defence of provocation, he did
not
include aspects
of the prosecution case
that
could have
been
helpful to
the
defence. The
Court of Appeal held
that
the
judge
had
explained
the
law to the
jury
impeccably,
that
there was ample evidence to support the jury's findings
and
that
the
appellant
had
not
suffered amiscarriage of justice.
The arguments in support of the appellant were presented in a
different
way
before
the
Judicial Committee of
the
Privy Council.
It
was
submitted before
their
Lordships' Board
that
the
trial judge
had
mis-
directed the
jury
on
the
onus
of proof regarding the defence of provoca-
tion
and
on
the
approach to the defence of self-defence.
It
was also
submitted
that
the
trial judge failed
to
provide
the
jury
with
comprehen-
sible directions of law
on
the
essential issues which were adapted to the
facts of
the
case. Counsel for
the
appellant accepted
that
his
argument
about
the
onus
of proof of provocation was
not
raised at
the
trial or
before
the
Court of Appeal. Counsel for the appellant also accepted that,
as his
argument
on
self-defence could be
met
without
difficulty by
the
application of
the
proviso,
the
onus
of proof on provocation was the
only point in
the
case.
Sections
238-241
of
the
Criminal Code of Grenada contain
the
rele-
vant
provisions relating to
the
defence of provocation
and
s.
239
states
that:
A person who intentionally causes the death of another person by un-
lawful harm shallbe deemed to be guilty only of manslaughter, and not of
murder, if any of the following matters of extenuation are
proved
on his
behalf
namely-
239
To continue reading
Request your trial