Homicide Q&A | latest update

Homicide Q&A | latest update R V AHLUWALIA (1993) 96 CR APP R 13 - Facts: This case is decided under the old law of provocation. The appellant poured petrol and caustic soda on to her sleeping husband and then set fire to him. He died six days later from his injuries. The couple had an arranged marriage and the husband had been violent and abusive throughout the marriage. He was also having an affair. On the night of the killing he had threatened to hit her with an iron and told her that he would beat her the next day if she did not provide him with money. At her trial she admitted killing her husband but raised the defence of provocation however, the jury convicted her of murder. She appealed. Held: The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the grounds of provocation. Lord Taylor of Gosforth said there had to be a "sudden and temporary loss of self-control". The longer the defendant waits between the provocation and the killing the harder it will be to rely on the defence: here, the defendant had thought about the attack for a few hours before actually doing so. However, the appeal was allowed on the grounds of diminished responsibility. R V ASCOTT [1997] 1 WLR 306 - Facts: Note: this case was decided under the old law of provocation. The defendant, aged 48, lived with his mother and became financially dependent on her. On 17th Feb 1993 the appellant called an ambulance as his mother had fallen down the stairs. She died. Medical evidence suggested that the mother died from a sustained attack rather than from the fall. The appellant was therefore charged with her murder. At his trial he denied any attack and maintained that his mother fell. During the trial, the prosecution continually put it to the defendant that his mother had mocked him and berated him for being inadequate and he then lost his control and attacked her and pushed her down the stairs. The defendant strongly denied all such allegations. Nevertheless the jury convicted him of murder. The defendant appealed.