... whether a person intended to do as he/she has done. This decision is bought upon with the reasons of the defendant having the necessary 'mens rea'. However, it must be evident as to what was done or said in order for the accused to have been provoked. In R v. Acott [1997] UKHL 5 the decision was made that A's loss of temper could have been the consequence of some words by person B. However, it was not evident as to what had been said and therefore the jury could not respond in accordance to the Act. The common law states that even with the decision of the defendant not having mens rea, provocation may still be looked upon. This rule was stated by Devlin J in Duffy [1949] 1 All ER 932n, CCA: "provocation is some act, or series of acts, done by the dead man to the ...

See this essay or coursework document in full right now