R v Morhall [1995] 3 All ER 659
Judgement for the case R v Morhall
Table Of Contents
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.
RELATED CASES
For Further Study on R v Morhall
Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Criminal Law | Defences Notes (32 pages) |
Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.