REGINA V Irene Margaret STARR

APPENDIX I

REGINA v Irene Margaret STARR

DIRECTIONS

MURDER

In order to prove that the accused (Irene Margaret Starr) is guilty of the murder of the deceased (John Victor Browne), the Crown must establish:

(1) that it was the act of the accused which caused the death of the deceased; and

(2) that that act was done with an intention to kill the deceased or to inflict grievous bodily harm (or really serious physical injury) upon him; and

(3) that that act was not done under provocation.

The plea by the accused that she is guilty of manslaughter on the ground of provocation admits the first and second of those issues. The Crown must therefore satisfy you beyond reasonable doubt that she did not act under provocation. The reasonable possibility that the accused acted under provocation is sufficient to reduce her crime from murder to manslaughter.

PROVOCATION

Provocation consists of conduct on the part of the deceased towards or affecting the accused which induces (or causes) a loss of self-control on the part of the accused. If -

(a) the act of the accused in killing the deceased with the intention of killing him, or of inflicting grievous bodily harm (or really serious physical injury) upon him, resulted from a loss of self-control on her part caused by such conduct of the deceased, and

(b) that conduct of the deceased was such that it could have induced (or caused) an ordinary person in the position of the accused to have so far lost that person’s self-control as to have formed an intention to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm upon the deceased.

Then the accused has acted under provocation.

The Crown must eliminate any reasonable possibility that the accused did act under provocation. It may do so by establishing either - APPENDIX I

(1) that the accused which caused the death of the deceased (including the intention to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm) did not result from a loss of self-control on the part of the accused; or

(2) that any such loss of self-control on the part of the accused had not been induced (or caused) by conduct on the part of the deceased towards the accused; or

(3) that the conduct of the deceased was not such as could have induced (or caused) an ordinary person in the position of the accused to have so far lost self-control as to have formed an intention to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm upon the deceased.

The Crown need establish only one of these three. It does not have to establish all of them.

LOSS OF SELF-CONTROL

A loss of self-control is not to be confused with emotions of anger, resentment, hatred, revenge or the like. None of these emotions amounts itself to a loss of self-control, although each may lead to a loss of self-control.

A loss of self-control must involve a temporary suspension of reason, where the power of reason rationally (or sensibly) has been lost.

The Crown must establish that the act of the accused which caused the death of the deceased (including the intention to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm) did not result from a loss of self-control on the part of the accused.

CONDUCT ON PART OF DECEASED

The conduct on the part of the deceased which may be considered as having induced (or caused) the accused to lose his self-control must be conduct by the deceased towards the accused himself, conduct which he has experienced herself.

Whether that conduct may have caused the accused to lose her self-control must be assessed from the viewpoint of this particular accused person. In assessing the effect of that conduct upon the accused, you must take into account all of his person characteristics - her age, sex, physical characteristics, personal relationships and past history.

The Crown must establish that the conduct of the deceased was not such as could have induced (or caused) an ordinary person in the position of the accused to have so far lost that person’s self-control as to have formed an intention to kill the deceased or to inflict grievous bodily harm upon him. APPENDIX I

VERDICT

If the Crown has established that the act of the accused which caused the death of the deceased was not done under provocation, you should find the accused guilty of murder.

If the Crown has not established that the act of the accused was not done under provocation (that is, the Crown has failed to eliminate the reasonable possibility that the accused acted under provocation), you must find the accused not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.