R v Doughty 
- The defendant suffocated his son shortly after birth due to incessant crying
- Could the defendant claim that he was provoked?
- The judge was wrong to say that the crying did not fall within the definition of a provocative act under the old defence of provocation
- As the defendant neither feared immediate violence nor had a justified sense of being seriously wronged, it is highly likely that a judge could not allow today’s modern equivalent of provocation: loss of self-control, to be raised as a defence. If it was allowed, the jury would be entitled to find the act unreasonable
Posted in Criminal Law Revision Notes.
This page was last updated on 26th December 2014