The appellant was convicted of first degree murder for stabbing his wife.
At trial, he admitted to the killing but raised the defence of provocation, arguing he lost control after she made a comment implying infidelity.
He sought to introduce expert evidence on Islamic cultural views regarding female infidelity to support the subjective and objective elements of provocation.
The trial judge excluded hearsay evidence of the victim's statements to a hotel clerk and instructed the jury not to consider the appellant's cultural background for the objective 'ordinary person' test.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the hearsay exclusion was a harmless error and that the provocation defence lacked an air of reality because there was no evidence the appellant personally held the cultural beliefs described by the expert.
