Derek Achong
Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
Criminal defence attorney Daniel Khan is calling for legislative reform on the defence of provocation, especially in murder cases arising out of intimate partner violence.
Khan made the call yesterday as the United Kingdom-based Privy Council weighed in on the legal issue in a case involving a man from Tobago, who was convicted of brutally murdering his ex-wife in 2005.
While Khan said that the intervention of the country's highest appellate court was welcomed, he suggested that it was insufficient to fully address difficult legal issues that arise frequently in such cases.
"So the Privy Council in this case said a loss of self-control must have based some level of proportionality to the act, and with differences in judicial opinion, it highlights a need for reform because judges don't make law," Khan said.
Khan suggested that local legislators could consider changes adopted by the UK Parliament.
"They got rid of the partial defence of provocation and passed a law called loss of self-control, which has specific areas which we are in need of. You would hear intimate partner violence being endemic in this country and it is an issue socially and legally that has to be addressed," Khan said.
He suggested that the proposed legislative intervention would help reduce inefficiency in the criminal justice system.
" Every type of manslaughter needs some clarification and if the legislation does come in where we categorise murders or types of killings, early identification at issue will help case flow management, proper understanding of which cases could be plead out and which cases have to go to trial," Khan said.
The appeal was pursued by Uriah Woods after he was convicted of murdering his former partner Sandra Miller, in 2015.
Woods and Miller were together for 15 years and had three children together. Miller left the relationship after years of physical abuse and started a relationship with another man.
In July 2005, Woods went to the home of Miller's new partner where he found them in bed together.
Woods chopped Miller 22 times.
The Privy Council found that the judge, who presided over Woods' trial, erred by directing the jury to decide whether an ordinary person would have reacted exactly as Woods did in the situation.
"The jury would have understood that unless a reasonable person would have acted in exactly the way in which the appellant did, the partial defence of provocation was not available. The Board is in no doubt that this was a misdirection," Lord David Lloyd-Jones and Sir Anthony Smellie, who wrote a joint judgment, said.
They suggested that the jury should have been advised that they had to decide whether an ordinary person might have reacted "in the same or in a similar way".
However, they found that the error made no difference to the outcome as the defence was not available to Woods based on evidence of premeditation, including past threats and his decision to bring a weapon when he entered the house.
Despite the finding, the Board upheld his appeal, requesting that a court consider fresh psychiatric evidence over him suffering from mild to moderate intellectual disability with an IQ of 53.
The Privy Council also considered that between 2020 and 2024, psychiatric experts diagnosed Woods as suffering from a delusional disorder with long-standing false beliefs about Miller.
The judges found that Miller may have been entitled to a defence of diminished responsibility if the evidence had been placed before the jury and could have been found guilty of the lesser offence of manslaughter.
They remitted the case to the Court of Appeal to determine whether Woods' conviction was safe based on the evidence. It also recommended that the Appeal Court give guidance requiring routine mental health assessments for accused persons in some murder cases.
Woods was also represented by Edward Fitzgerald, KC, and Graeme Hall, while Rowan Pennington-Benton and Daniel Goldblatt represented the State.
