Early v HM Advocate

[1] The appellant was convicted of a charge of murder by a majority verdict of the jury in Perth High Court on 12 April 2000 . The victim had been the appellant's partner for some three years prior to the end of 1998. The relationship had been difficult, and after the separation the appellant had obtained a Sheriff Court interdict against the deceased from molesting her or calling at her home. However, there appeared to be some form of continuing contact between them.

[11] This leaves the question, referred to in the first sentence of the third Ground of Appeal, as to whether the directions given by the trial judge to the jury on the definition of provocation were inadequate and confusing. It is true that the relevant part of the charge is not presented to the jury with the degree of clarity which might be expected. What the trial judge said (page-18 of the charge) was this:

"...if you are satisfied that there was a provocative act which led to what the accused did, again you have to be satisfied not in the same balance that applied to self-defence but you have to be satisfied that she did not go far beyond what would be reasonably provoking reasonable reaction to a provocative act and, again that's entirely a matter for you".

[12] In all the circumstances therefore we do not think that the appellant has established in terms of the final ground of appeal that there has been misdirection amounting to a miscarriage of justice, and we therefore refuse the appeal.