Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

R v Morhall

[1995] 3 All ER 659

Case summary last updated at 11/01/2020 16:07 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case 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. 

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Criminal Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Criminal Law Notes

Criminal Law Notes >>