Where a trial judge leaves self-defence to the jury in a case involving serious wounding, provocation should ordinarily also be left if there is any evidential basis for it. Fear for the safety of an unborn child, combined with physical violence and threats by a spouse, is capable of constituting provocation. The failure of an accused to testify to loss of self-control is not fatal where self-defence is the primary defence, and loss of control may be inferred from circumstantial evidence including the disproportionate nature of the attack, the accused's demeanour, and post-offence conduct. A finding that provocation should have been left to the jury forecloses the application of the proviso under s 353(1).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.