Recent Judicial Decisions
| Author | Jane Creaton |
| Published date | 01 September 2006 |
| Date | 01 September 2006 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1350/pojo.2006.79.3.279 |
| Subject Matter | Recent Judicial Decisions |
JANE CREATON
Legal Correspondent
Email: jane.creaton@port.ac.uk
RECENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Judicial Precedent
R v James, R v Karimi [2006] EWCA 36
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
25 January 2006
Homicide Act 1957, s. 3; Judicial Precedent; law of
precedent; provocation; Police Journal 78(2): 161; R v
146; whether Holly represents English law; whether a
Privy Council decision can overrule a House of Lords’
decision
These were two appeals which were heard together. The first was
an appeal against a conviction of murder in 1980, after a
reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and the
second was an appeal against a conviction of murder in 2005.
The facts
Mr James was charged with the murder of his wife. At the time
of the trial in 1980, there had been psychiatric evidence that the
appellant’s ability to control his behaviour was impaired. On the
basis of this evidence, the Crown had been prepared to accept a
plea of guilty to manslaughter on the basis of diminished
responsibility. However, the defence refused to advance the plea
and so the trial proceeded without the evidence and on the
assumption that the defendant was fully responsible for his
actions. He advanced the partial defence of provocation which
required the jury to consider two tests: had the defendant been
provoked so as to lose self-control and would a reasonable man
have done as the defendant did? In relation to the second limb of
the test, the judge directed the jury in accordance with the law at
that time, which was set out in DPP v Camplin [1978] AC 705.
The standard of self-control was that to be expected of a
reasonable man. The Criminal Cases Review Commission
referred the case to the Court of Appeal on the ground that,
following the reformulation of the second limb of the test in R v
Smith (Morgan) [2001] 1 AC 146, a defence of provocation may
have succeeded.
The Police Journal, Volume 79 (2006) 279
To continue reading
Request your trial