Page 876 - SUBSEC October 2017_Neat

02131020/CAPE/SPEC 2017

8

 Coincidence of actus reus or mens rea – whether the
defendant having the intention to kill or cause
grievous bodily harm does an action to bring about
the death or harm of Tina

Cases:
R v. Maloney 1985
R v. Lamb*

Any two points clearly explained 2 marks each [4 marks]
Weak explanation 1 mark
Any relevant example given 1 mark

(ii) John may raise the defence of provocation
 Definition of provocation - Provocation is an act or
series of acts, done by the deceased to the accused
which would cause in a reasonable man and has actually
caused in the accused a sudden and temporary loss of
self-control rendering the accused so subject to
passion as to make him or her for the moment not the
master of his mind – R v. Duffy 1949.
 Elements of provocation
o Sudden and temporary loss of self-control -
Instantaneity of the attack and the absence of
time to cool off and regain one’s self control
o Reasonableness of defendant’s conduct – Whether
the defendant reacted reasonably to the
provocation, that is, in a manner that a
reasonable man would have – R v. Phillips; R v.
Doughty 1986.

Any two points clearly explained 2 marks each [4 marks]
Weak explanation 1 mark
Any relevant example given 1 mark

Application and Conclusion
 Where it is determined that provocation has been successfully
raised, John’s conviction for murder would be reduced to
voluntary manslaughter.
 Where it is determined that provocation cannot be successfully
raised as a result of his conduct being unreasonable and
excessive, he would be convicted for murder.

Application and Conclusion [2 marks]
Coherence [3 marks]

[15 marks]

Total 25 marks