In relation to voluntary manslaughter discuss the suggestion that the current law is satisfactory and not in need of reform.

        Also the words can be unclear. Different doctors have classified the same condition in different ways. Some disagree as to whether the abnormality of mind is an inherent cause of the act, it is largely down to opinion. Also the law commission has pointed out that there is a disagreement on whether the concept of ‘substantial impairment of mental responsibility’ is a medical question. This should not be decided by doctors as this is a moral question. The wording can also confuse the jury and a lack of understanding leads to inconsistent decisions. There is also in many cases, an overlap of the defences diminished responsibility and provocation, as the jury has to take into account the defendants mental state when deciding if provocation should succeed. This can cause confusion when they put forward both defences, as for provocation the defence only have to raise the issue, but for diminished responsibility the defence has to prove it on the balance of probabilities.

        There are also many issues in the law of provocation. By using the term ‘reasonable man’ as set out in s3 of the Homicide Act 1957, there is an immediate difficulty. It raises the question of whether a reasonable person would ever kill in response to provocation. Also the term ‘reasonable man’ is difficult to explain; Smith (Morgan James) was recently overruled by Holley in reference to the defendants power of self control. It is also not clear in reference to the gravity of provocation and whether certain characteristics should be applied to the ‘reasonable man’. The term ‘reasonable man’ has been considered 4 times in the last 20 years by the House of Lords. This can confuse juries and leads to inconsistent decisions.

        There is no limit to the conduct which is considered capable of provocation. This was seen in Doughty where the crying of a very young baby was held to be provocation. This means that a completely innocent person can be ruled as provocation and that the victim doesn’t have to realise its actions are provoking. Provocation provides a defence for anger, but there is no defence for people who kill in fear or out of despair or compassion. Why is it that people can be excused because of anger when surely people who kill in fear or out of despair or compassion should have a defence?

        Some reforms have been proposed. One is that only ‘gross provocation’ would be accepted for provocation. This would prevent cases such as Doughty been successful. The partial defence should not be applied where the provocation was incited by the defendant for the purpose of providing an excuse to use violence or if the defendant acted in considered desire for revenge.