Holmes v.

Director of Public Prosecutions

House of Lord, 1946. (1946) A.C. 588, 31 Crim.Spp.R. 123, (1946) 2 All E.R. 124.

FACTS: Holmes and his wife started arguing after some people winked his wife. According to Holmes, his wife said that she had "been untrue" to him and that she had "no proof that [Holmes] had not been - at Mrs. X's." Holmes then lost his temper, picked up a hammer and struck his wife on the head with it. After she fell down, Holmes then put both his hands round her neck until she stopped breathing (manual strangulation) with the intent to take his wife's life. PROCEDURE: Holmes was convicted of murdering his wife. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction. Holmes appealed to the House of Lords. ISSUE: Should a jury be instructed to consider mere words as being enough of a provocation to reduce murder to manslaughter? HOLDING: No, the jury should not be instructed in such a case because a confession of adultery cannot in itself justify the view that a reasonable man would be so provoked to commit murder. Appeal dismissed. RULE: Mere words, even if a sudden confession of adultery or an abusive insult, can never constitute enough provocation to a reasonable man as to reduce murder to manslaughter. REASONING: The general doctrine is "provocation depends on the fact that it causes, or may cause, a sudden and temporary loss of self-control whereby malice, which is the formation of an intention to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm, is nega[ted]." The only exception is if the spouse was found in the act of adultery where the "provocation inspires an actual intention to kill". In this case, Holmes' s wife made a statement of admitting adultery so the rule does not apply here because mere words are not sufficient provocation. Upon hearing this, a reasonable man would not have been provoked to murder his wife. "If there is no sufficient material... for a jury to form the view that a reasonable person so provoked could be driven, through transport of passion and loss of self control, to the degree and method and continuance of violence which produces the death, it is the duty of the judge as matter of law to direct the jury that the evidence does not support a verdict of manslaughter." On the other hand, "if...a reasonable person, in consequence of the provocation received, might be so rendered subject to passion or loss of control as to be led to use the violence with fatal results, and (b) that the accused was in fact acting under the stress of such provocation, then it is for the jury to determine whether on its view of the facts manslaughter or murder is the appropriate verdict." NOTE: It seems physical provocation is treated differently, or physical provocation combined with words.