DPP v Camplin

DPP v Camplin
Court House of Lords
Decided 6 April 1978
Citation(s) [1978] UKHL 2
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Lord Diplock, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Scarman
Keywords
Provocation

Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Camplin [1978] UKHL 2[1] was an English criminal law case heard in the House of Lords Judicial Committee in 1978 and which became an important authority for the defence of provocation until Parliament replaced the defence with one of "loss of control" in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

Facts of the case

The defendant at trial, Camplin, was 15 years old at the time of the offence. He killed Mohammed Lal Khan, a Pakistani man, by hitting him on the head with a chapati pan following Khan having sex with him non-consensually (then referred to as buggery) and then laughing at him. (The House of Lords judgement note that the account given by Camplin to the Police during questioning and the account given at trial differed substantially.)

Decision

The issue at the heart of the Camplin case is whether the "reasonable man" test laid out for the defence of provocation was one which matched the characteristics of the defendant or whether it ought to be confined to the characteristics of the "adult male". Lord Diplock noted that the "reasonable man" was:

an ordinary person of either sex, not exceptionally excitable or pugnacious, but possessed of such powers of self-control as everyone is entitled to expect that his fellow citizens will exercise in society as it is today[1]

Lord Diplock noted that in the facts before the court, the age of the defendant was "a characteristic which may have its effects on temperament as well as physique". The House of Lords agreed with a previous Court of Appeal judgement which found that it was wrong for the trial judge to have instructed the jury to not consider the defendant's age (or sex) when deciding whether he had been provoked.[1]

Authority

Lord Diplock's decision to allow personal characteristics like sex and age in Camplin was referenced in the House of Lords case of R v Graham[2] in determining whether a defendant relying on the defence of duress acted reasonably.[3]

References

  1. 1 2 3 DPP v Camplin [1978] UKHL 2
  2. ↑ [1982] 1 AER 801
  3. ↑ David C. Ormerod; John Cyril Smith; Brian Hogan (2008). Smith and Hogan Criminal Law. Oxford University Press. p. 332. ISBN 978-0-19-920258-4.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.