R Appellant and Smith (Morgan) Respondent

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtHouse of Lords
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
10 cases
  • DPP v Curran
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • 14 December 2011
    ...(Dec). R. v. Richens [1993] 4 All E.R. 877; (1992) 98 Cr. App. R. 43; [1993] Crim. L.R. 384. R. v. Smith (Morgan) [2001] 1 A.C. 146; [2000] 3 W.L.R. 654; [2000] 4 All E.R. 289; [2001] 1 Cr. App. R. 31; [2000] Crim. L.R. 1004. R. v. Taylor [1998] Crim. L.R. 822. R. v. Wright [2000] Crim. L.R......
  • Holley v AG
    • United Kingdom
    • Privy Council
    • 15 June 2005
    ...Thuan v R. (1996) 2 All ER 1033; [1997] AC 131 P.C. Ashworth: ‘The Doctrine of Provocation’ [1976] CLJ 292 at 300. R. v Smith (Morgan) [2000] 3 WLR 654 HL (E). Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law, 1961: Article 25(1). R. v Petman (2nd May 1985) English Court of Appeal (Unreported). R. v Butler (......
  • Andrew Gillon V. Her Majesty's Advocate
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Justiciary
    • 17 August 2006
    ...[1969] 2 WLR 581 R v CamplinELRWLRUNK [1978] AC 705; [1978] 2 WLR 679; [1978] 2 All ER 168 R v Smith (Morgan)ELRWLRUNK [2001] 1 AC 146; [2000] 3 WLR 654; [2000] 4 All ER 289 Robertson v HM AdvocateSCUNK 1994 JC 245; 1994 SLT 1004; 1994 SCCR 589 Thomson v HM AdvocateUNK 1986 SLT 281; 1985 SC......
  • Stuart Drury V. Her Majesty's Advocate
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Justiciary
    • 2 February 2001
    ...gross and there is a dangerous weapon to hand, with that weapon." For the reasons discussed by their Lordships in R. v. Smith (Morgan) [2000] 3 W.L.R. 654, in this context it may be preferable to think in terms of the ordinary man or woman rather than of the reasonable man. In particular, i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Unlawful and Dangerous
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 81-2, April 2017
    • 1 April 2017
    ...of New South Wales.196. Ibid. at [69].197. Ibid. at [69] and [70].198. See e.g. Morhall [1996] 1 AC 90; Morgan Smith [2001] 1 AC 146, [2000] 3 WLR 654; Attorney-General for Jersey vHolley[2005] UKPC 23, [2005] 2 AC 580, [2005] 3 WLR 29. Provocation was abolished by s. 56, Coroners and Justi......
  • Dishonest Appropriation after Gomez and Hinks
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 68-6, November 2004
    • 1 November 2004
    ...[1995] 1 AC 171, HL(the meaning of gross negligence); DPP vWoollin [1998] 3 WLR 382, HL (themeaning of intention); R vSmith (Morgan) [2000] 3 WLR 654, HL (the meaning ofprovocation).55 Article 7 (1) states: ‘No one shall be held guilty of any offence on account of anyact or omission which d......
  • Criminal Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2000, December 2000
    • 1 December 2000
    ...Canada (R v Hill[1986] 1 SCR 313). However, the House of Lords in England has recently taken a completely opposite stance in R v Smith[2000] 3 WLR 654, holding that all relevant characteristics can be taken into consideration by the jury in deciding whether the objective element of provocat......
  • The Loss of Control Defence—Fit for Purpose?
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 79-2, April 2015
    • 1 April 2015
    ...a strong basis for excusing the defendant of murder.2422. J.C. Smith, commentary to Smith (Morgan James) [2000] Crim LR 1004 at 1006.23. [2000] 3 WLR 654.24. J. Gardner and T. Macklem ‘Compassion without Respect? Nine Fallacies in R v Smith’ [2001] Crim LR 623.Parsons In contrast, however, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT