Statements of state of mind made five months before a killing are too remote in time to be admissible as evidence of the maker's state of mind at the time of the killing, even where the statements relate to a generalised fear. Where the subjective component of provocation may be open on the evidence, the defence must still be withdrawn from the jury if the objective component cannot be satisfied. Video evidence of a killing does not render the question of loss of self-control a matter beyond jury assessment, and judges must guard against treating their own interpretation of video footage as conclusive.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.