R v Morhall

 The defendant was a glue sniffing addict. When a friend criticised him over the habit, the defendant killed him. He was convicted of murder and appealed on the grounds that the trial judge failed to mention his habit as an important characteristic in provocation. CA dismissed his appeal but HL allowed it, saying that his addiction was relevant in deciding how grave the provocation was to him. This, combined with Camplin, completely abandons the intention of the Homicide Act and the reasonable man test.