The appellant was convicted of second degree murder in the death of his wife.
He appealed the conviction, arguing the trial judge erred by refusing to leave the defence of provocation with the jury and by improperly instructing the jury on how to use his post-offence conduct to infer intent.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that there was an air of reality to the subjective element of provocation despite the appellant's testimony that he was not angry.
The Court also held that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that they could use the appellant's bizarre post-offence conduct to infer an intent to kill, as such conduct was equally consistent with manslaughter.
A new trial was ordered.
