Case note on ahluwalia
R. V Kiranjit Ahluwalia [1993] 96 Cr. APP. R. 133 Court of Appeal
Introduction
In this case, R. V Kiranjit Ahluwalia1, the appellant is kiranjit Ahluwalia and the respondent is Regina (the Crown). The Legal issue in the case was whether the use of provocation as a defense could stand as she had sufficient time to consider her action and also if it could stand as a defence to person who has suffered domestic abuse with resulted in a battered woman’s syndrome.
The Crown court convicted her of Murder and rejected the defence of provocation. The court of appeal overturned the conviction and ordered a retrial.
Facts
On the night of May 9,1989, The appellant, who had endured 10 years of domestic abuse was attacked by her husband who threatened to burn her face with an Iron and beat her the next day.
Later that night while he was asleep, she poured a mixture of caustic soda and petrol on him and set him on fire.
Her Husband died 10 days later in the hospital from the severe burns.
Judgment
Lord Taylor C.J rejected the appellant’s submission that the Duffy2 Direction as found in Delvin J’s judgment used by the Judge at first instance was wrong and that direction was based on a failure to understand the impact of section 3 of the Homicide Act3 as supported by the House of Lords in DPP v Camplin4. He found that although in DPP v Camplin5, Lord Diplock in his judgment referred to that section 6as “abolishing all previous rules of law as to what can. amount to provocation”7, he did not provide a new definition. Lord Taylor Further looked into a case R v Thornton8 where a similar submission to that of the defendant was considered but rejected by the court.
The appellant submitted that the phrase “sudden and temporary” loss of control might lead to jury to assume that provocation is only used in situations where the fatal act was performed
Introduction
In this case, R. V Kiranjit Ahluwalia1, the appellant is kiranjit Ahluwalia and the respondent is Regina (the Crown). The Legal issue in the case was whether the use of provocation as a defense could stand as she had sufficient time to consider her action and also if it could stand as a defence to person who has suffered domestic abuse with resulted in a battered woman’s syndrome.
The Crown court convicted her of Murder and rejected the defence of provocation. The court of appeal overturned the conviction and ordered a retrial.
Facts
On the night of May 9,1989, The appellant, who had endured 10 years of domestic abuse was attacked by her husband who threatened to burn her face with an Iron and beat her the next day.
Later that night while he was asleep, she poured a mixture of caustic soda and petrol on him and set him on fire.
Her Husband died 10 days later in the hospital from the severe burns.
Judgment
Lord Taylor C.J rejected the appellant’s submission that the Duffy2 Direction as found in Delvin J’s judgment used by the Judge at first instance was wrong and that direction was based on a failure to understand the impact of section 3 of the Homicide Act3 as supported by the House of Lords in DPP v Camplin4. He found that although in DPP v Camplin5, Lord Diplock in his judgment referred to that section 6as “abolishing all previous rules of law as to what can. amount to provocation”7, he did not provide a new definition. Lord Taylor Further looked into a case R v Thornton8 where a similar submission to that of the defendant was considered but rejected by the court.
The appellant submitted that the phrase “sudden and temporary” loss of control might lead to jury to assume that provocation is only used in situations where the fatal act was performed
Bibliography: R. v Ahluwali (Kiranjit) [1993] 96 Cr. App. R. 133 R. v Duffy [1949] 1 All E.R 932 DPP v. Camplin [1978] 67 Cr.App.R. 14 Criminal Appeal Act 1968 Homicide Act 1957 Mental Health Act 1968