Development Of Defense Of Provocation :: essays research papers

Development of Defense of ProvocationQuestion Critically evaluate the development of public law principlesapplicable to the defence of provocation in criminal law from the decision inMancini v DPP 1942 AC 1 to Mascantonio v R (1995) 183 CLR 58. tax thedegree to which the common law has proved inflexible in responding changingsocietal needs and expectations. Are there other legal means of achieving indispensable justice?     At the time of the case of Mancini the concept of provocation as adefence to murder was already a well established nonpareil dating back centuries. Itoriginated from the days when men bore arms and engaged in quarrels of violencethat often resulted in a homicide being committed. For provocation to be anample defence to murder it needed to be something which incited immediate anger,or "passion" and which overcame a persons self control to such an extent so asto overpower or swamp his reason. What this something can be has been thesub ject of macrocosmy views through the centuries, and these views have stronglydepended upon the type of person whom the law has regarded as beextenuated consideration when provoked to kill. In the words of Viscount Simon"the law has to reconcile respect for the sanctity of valet life withrecognition of the effect of provocation on human frailty. " In this regard thedifficult concept of the "reasonable man" or the "ordinary man" has developedand with it the legal philosophical system that provocation must be such as would not onlycause the person accused to behave as he did but as would cause an ordinary manto so lose control of himself as to act in the same sort of way. It is thereforeinteresting to examine how the doctrine of common law in relation to provocationhas responded to changing societal needs and values. It also provides a usefulcase study in which the development of common law doctrine can be observed. Itis useful to conduct a case-by-case anal ysis of the rule of provocation as adefence to murder in regularize to more effectively observe the legal evolution thathas taken place.     In the case of Mancini v DPP 1942 AC 1 the appellant had beenconvicted for murder after injure a man to death in a club. The appellantscounsel contended that the trial judge should have directed that the jury wasopen to find provocation to mortify the appellants conviction to manslaughter.Lord Simonds provided direction upon what kind of provocation would reducemurder to manslaughter. He said that the provocation must temporarily deprive