Attorney General For Jersey v. Holle Privy Council

2005 UKPC 23, 3 All ER 371.

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D and the deceased, Cherylinn Mullane, were both alcoholics. Their relationship was stormy. They regularly drank to excess. When drunk, they had rows and were violent. There were many incidents of violence. D served sentences of imprisonment in respect of assaults on the deceased. On his release from prison, he returned to the flat on the Elysée estate, but the deceased did not want him to continue to live there. He became withdrawn and depressed. There were further episodes of mutual violence and rows. D and the victim spent an hour drinking heavily and arguing. He returned to the flat mid-afternoon, and spent the remainder of the afternoon chopping wood with an ax and drinking lager. The deceased spent the afternoon in a public-house drinking. She returned to the flat at about 5.15 pm. By then the defendant had drunk about 11 cans and 3 pints of beer or lager. She entered the flat and told him she had just had sex with another man. D picked up the ax, intending to leave the flat and chop some more wood when the deceased said: “You haven’t got the guts.” Whereupon he lifted the ax and struck the deceased seven or eight times. D admitted killing the deceased, and the only issue was provocation. He was convicted of murder. He appealed, and the Court of Appeal allowed his appeal on the ground of misdirection on the defense of provocation. The court set aside D’s conviction and ordered a retrial. An expert testified that the killing was the result solely of D’s consumption of alcohol. Another expert considered D’s serious chronic alcoholism was a disease and that his intake of alcohol was involuntary. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty of murder. D was sentenced to life imprisonment. D appealed and, once again, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the ground of misdirection, and set aside the conviction of murder. The court should have drawn a distinction between being drunk, which gives rise to no arguable ground of provocation and suffering from the disease of alcoholism, which was a matter to be taken into account when deciding whether or not the defendant was provoked. A verdict of manslaughter was entered, and the defendant was sentenced to eight years imprisonment.