A trial judge's direction on provocation that refers to 'extraordinary act of aggressiveness or extraordinary loss of self control' not conferring protection against murder conviction does not impermissibly introduce proportionality considerations under s 23(3)(a) when read in context of the ordinary person test under s 23(2)(b). Where the Crown relies on inconsistencies in an accused's accounts to submit the account of provocative events is unbelievable (rather than as consciousness of guilt evidence), a direction on onus of proof and the limited use of disbelief is sufficient without a full Edwards direction. Failure of experienced defence counsel to raise either issue at trial despite express invitations from the judge strongly supports refusal of leave under Rule 4.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.