The majority upheld the withdrawal of provocation from the jury where the deceased's conduct consisted of insulting words (including culturally offensive insults about the accused's family) and refusal of entry and food, holding these fell far below the minimum self-control of an ordinary 20-year-old. The question whether 'mere words' can constitute provocation at common law in Victoria remains unresolved, though Eames JA's extensive analysis supports the proposition that words of a 'violently provocative character' (not requiring a threat of violence) may suffice. The case highlights the tension between the judicial gatekeeping function and the jury's role in evaluating provocation.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.