Actually I am pretty sure that provocation was in effect until Clayton Weatherstone killed his girlfriend? It was removed in response to that. So far as that is concerned it is again something not understood by our commentary teams on here.
Assume for a moment in time that you caught somebody raping your small daughter and the resultant blow you applied to the back of his head killed him.... why should the court not consider provocation as contributory to the act?
Just because a defence team claims evidence of contributory behaviour, does not mean the court has to find that behaviour justified or not, relevant or not, legitimate or not. To have that information not be considered by the court, just because the public are too emotionally immature and too ignorant to understand that a fair justice system is not interfered with by a stupid public or stupid politicians, is absurd.
Bookmarks