Zhang, R v

i. that the trial judge erred in law with regard to his direction to the jury in respect of the definition of the reasonable man when considering the issue of provocation;

ii that the learned trial judge erred in law in admitting forensic evidence relating to a condom found in the bedroom of the house upon which the DNA of the deceased and an unidentified male was found together with evidence relating to unidentified semen on a mattress.

Leave to appeal was granted on the first ground only, on the basis that it was arguable that the learned trial judge had not identified to the jury two elements in the objective/evaluative ingredient of the test for provocation, namely the assessment of the gravity of the provocation and the application of the external standard of self-control.

[3] At the hearing of the appeal Mr O'Donoghue QC who, with Mr�Greene, appeared on behalf of the appellant applied for and was granted leave to amend the grounds of appeal. These now are:-

The Learned Trial Judge erred in law in failing to admit expert evidence before the jury of the characteristics of an appropriate reasonable comparator for the application of the second limb (objective test) of the defence of provocation.