Legal Case Summary
R v Martin (Anthony Edward) [2001] EWCA Crim 2245
Criminal law – Manslaughter – Diminished responsibility
Facts
Martin had shot two people that were trying to burgle his home. He killed one of them and wounded the other. At the initial trial, Martin attempted to claim self-defence but was unsuccessful. He was convicted by a majority of 10 to 2 for murder and wounding with intent. Martin was subsequently found to have a long standing, paranoid personality disorder. He later contended that his illness had affected how he measured the risk in the situation and appealed his conviction.
Issues
Martin relied on the case of R v Smith (Morgan James) [2001] which found that a jury should take into account a characteristic which would affect the self-control of an individual in a case which involved provocation. On this basis, the legal issue in question was whether the jury should have been able to consider Martin’s personality disorder alongside his defence in light of the circumstances.
Decision/Outcome
Martin’s appeal was allowed in part. It was held that provocation and self-defence were different and that whilst an accused could employ the case of R v Smith for psychiatric consideration in provocation cases, it would only be in exceptional circumstances that this could be relied upon in understanding whether an individual had used reasonable force in self-defence. It was accepted however that physical characteristics could be taken into account. As a result of fresh evidence in relation to diminished responsibility, Martin’s conviction for murder was quashed and replaced for a conviction for manslaughter by way of diminished responsibility. Martin was sentenced to five years imprisonment.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately describes the decision in R v Martin (Anthony Edward) [2001] EWCA Crim 2245. However, readers should be aware of two important subsequent legal developments that affect the wider legal context of this case.
First, the article refers to R v Smith (Morgan James) [2001] as good law on provocation, specifically that a defendant’s characteristics could be considered when assessing the reasonable person standard. That approach was disapproved by the House of Lords in R v Holley [2005] UKPC 23, in which the Privy Council (sitting with nine members specifically to reconsider Smith) held that the reasonable person standard is objective and that personal characteristics going to the gravity of the provocation (but not to the standard of self-control expected) are relevant. Holley was subsequently confirmed as the correct approach for England and Wales in R v James; R v Karimi [2006] EWCA Crim 14. The principle in Smith as relied upon in Martin is therefore no longer good law.
Second, and more fundamentally, the defence of provocation itself no longer exists in England and Wales. It was abolished by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and replaced with the partial defence of loss of control (sections 54–56). The new defence is narrower in scope and subject to different qualifying triggers. The diminished responsibility defence was also reformed by the same Act (section 52), amending section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 to modernise its wording. The case remains a useful illustration of how fresh psychiatric evidence can found an appeal on diminished responsibility grounds, but its discussion of provocation must be read in this superseded legislative context.
