3. Demonstrate an understanding of defences of:
a. Immature age b. Provocation c. Necessity d. Self-defence
4. Evaluate the principles of liability to punishment as to an offence.
3. Main Content
3.2.1 Defence of provocation
A person is not criminally responsible for an assault committed upon a person who gives him provocation for the assault if he is in fact deprived by the provocation of the power of self control, and acts upon it on the sudden and before there is time for the passion to cool; provided that the force used is not disproportionate to the provocation and is not intended and is not such as is likely to cause death or grievous harm, (section 284, CC)
3.2.2. Killing on provocation
When a person who unlawfully kills another in circumstances which, but for the provisions of this section, would constitute murder, does the act
which causes death is the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation, and before there is time for his passion to cool, he is guilty of manslaughter only, (section 318,CC).
The provisions of the criminal code as stated above did not define the term “provocation” They merely attempted to explain it.
Fakayode (1977) stated that the defence of provocation consists of such matters of fact as to tend to show that:
(a) the victim did a wrongful or insult (b) (i)to the accused, or
(ii)to somebody related to or under the care of the accused and in the presence of the accused
© capable of depriving the ordinary man of his power of self control (d)Accused was actually deprived of his power of self control
(e)accused acted on the sudden and in the heat of passion without cooling time
(f) (i) no unreasonable or excessive force was used, or (ii) the means of retaliation was appropriate.
Examples of words or acts to which the defence of provocation has succeeded are as follows:
Wife telling her illiterate and primitive husband that hwe was impotent and for that reason, he has been committing acts of adultery with other men, R v Adekanmi (1944).
Wife, taunting her husband with his impotence and spitting on his face, R v Igiri (1948).
Deceased stabbing the appellant, Mensah v King (1945).
Wife saying her illiterate husband and a dog were the same, Ruma v Daura N A (1960)
Wife calling her husband a slave, Edache v The Queen, (1962) Deceased suddenly gripping the throat of th3e appellantduring a dispute, R v Josiah Onyeamaizu,(1959)(1959)(1959).
Examples of cases where courts have rejected the defence of provocation:
Confession of adultery, Queen v Udo Akpakpan (1956)
Refusal by wife to prepare food for her husband, Queen v Eseno (1960)
Deceased brother taunting the Appellant, and saying he provided money tom enable appellant to marry, Nungu v Queen (1953)
The defence of provocation can succeed only if the effect of abuse or insult would cause a reasonable man to lose his self-control and also that the accused did actually lose his self-control consequent upon the provocation
In criminal law, words alone may not amount to constitute provocation.
But the court has held that that in some particular cases they can. Much would depend on the words used and what they mean, having regard to the custom or background of the person son whom the words are used 3.2.3. Defence of Provocation in Murder Cases
In relation to murder, Devlin, J described provocation as some act of series of acts, which would cause in any reasonable person, and actually causes in the accused, a sudden and temporary loss of self-control, rendering the accused so subject to passion as to make him or her for the moment not master of his mind. See R v Duffy (1949)
The important element of what constitutes provocation is that the act leading to death must be shown to have been done “in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation and before there is time for his passion to cool.”
In Bedder v DPP (1954), The accused was sexually impotent. He tried unsuccessfully to have intercourse with a prostitute. She thereafter jeered at him, and also kicked him causing him to lose self-control, whereupon, he stabbed her twice and killed her.
On a charge of murder, the accused pleaded provocation and the House of Lords upheld the direction that the proper test was the effect which the conduct of the prostitute would have on an ordinary person, not on a sexually impotent person.
The mode of resentment must bear a reasonable proportion to the provocation offered –a fist blow for a fist blow, not a savage attack with a lethal weapon in return for a mere vituperative abuse
Where the defence of provocation is successfully established, the offence of murder is reduced to manslaughter.