-118-
temporary loss of self control, rendering the accused so
subject to passion as to cause him to retaliate.
to you.
Now when the Defence tells you that there is provocation
Members of the Jury, they have not got to prove provocation
It always remains with the Crown to prove its
case. The Crown has to prove the absence of provocation.
So now in this case, you have it that there were words
spoken by the deceased. But they must cause a reasonable
person to lose his self control. Is the accused a
reasonable person? The pscyhiatrist said that he has
mental retardation. But you have seen him here and he
has acquitted himself very well in the witness box.
I should think he is a reasonable person, but you have to
decide and as I said my observations you can throw aside.
5
10
That the provocation causes him a sudden and temporary
loss of self control. This must be something that
happens all of a sudden, that he loses his head temporarily
in a flash. He does something he shouldn't do, in a
sudden and temporary loss of self control and after having
done it, he regrets it, but by that time he has regained
his reason. Could the words in this case and such actions
as may have accompanied these words, like when she called
out to him in the public place out by the school yard
where other people may have heard, have caused
15
20
him a
sudden and temporary loss of self control so he immediately 25
retaliates? There are three elements in provocation
-
there must be the act of provocation, there must be the
loss of self control and there has to be the retaliation.
But the retaliation Members of the Jury, must be
proportionate to the provocation.
So you have now to
30
decide one of two things. Was the accused when he was
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.