R v Johnson
1989 · 1 WLR 740
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- Johnson had been drinking in a nightclub. He threatened violence towards a woman and towards a man in the group. A struggle followed. He stabbed the man with a flick knife and killed him. He was of murder and appealed on .
- Issue
- Does a person who started the trouble lose the defence of provocation?
- Held
- The appeal was allowed and manslaughter was substituted. Self-induced provocation is not an automatic bar. The provocation must, however, be extreme when it is compared with the accused's own conduct.
- Principle
- Starting a fight does not, by itself, exclude provocation. It weighs heavily in the question.
- Why it matters
- It is the limit on the idea that a person cannot rely on a reaction he himself provoked.
Words and Latin in this note
- Provocation
- A partial defence to murder in Sierra Leone. The accused lost self-control because of provocative conduct, and a reasonable person with the accused's characteristics might have done as he did. It reduces murder to manslaughter. It is not a defence to any other crime. Open the note.
Also on Lanbuk
- R v Johnson in Lanbuk on the Law of Evidence
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.