## Facts

- A 15-year-old boy, Paul Camplin, killed a middle-aged man, Mohammed Lal Khan, by striking him on the head with a heavy frying pan in Khan’s flat.
- On Camplin’s account (treated as the basis for provocation), Khan sexually assaulted him, Camplin resisted, and Khan then laughed at him.
- Camplin said he lost self-control and struck Khan, causing fatal injury.
- At trial, Camplin relied only on provocation under § 3 of the Homicide Act 1957 to reduce murder to manslaughter.
- The trial judge instructed the jury to apply the “reasonable man” test without considering Camplin’s age; the jury convicted him of murder.
- The Court of Appeal held the direction was wrong, substituted a manslaughter conviction, and the prosecution appealed.

## Issues

1. Under § 3 of the Homicide Act 1957, whether the “reasonable man” in the provocation test is a uniform adult standard that ignores the defendant’s age.
2. Whether the jury may or must evaluate provocation by reference to an ordinary person sharing the defendant’s age (and sex) placed in the same circumstances.

## Decision

- The House of Lords dismissed the prosecution’s appeal and affirmed the substitution of manslaughter.
- The trial judge misdirected the jury by treating the defendant’s age as irrelevant to the “reasonable man” assessment.
- The correct direction required the jury to consider whether the provocation was enough to make an ordinary person of the defendant’s age and sex act as the defendant did.
- The question of sufficiency of provocation remains for the jury to decide on the facts, not for expert opinion.

## Legal Principles

- For provocation under § 3 of the Homicide Act 1957, the “reasonable man” is an ordinary person with the level of self-control society is entitled to expect, assessed in the accused’s situation.
- The ordinary person for this purpose must, at minimum, share the defendant’s age and sex; it is unrealistic and legally erroneous to apply a fixed adult standard to a child.
- Earlier authority requiring an abstract, uniform adult standard cannot control where inconsistent with § 3’s statutory direction to consider the circumstances and leave the evaluative judgment to the jury.
- The jury, not expert witnesses, determines whether provocation was sufficient to make an ordinary person of the relevant age and sex do as the defendant did.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords held that provocation is assessed by asking whether the conduct was enough to make an ordinary person of the defendant’s age and sex act as the defendant did, making it error to direct a jury to ignore the defendant’s youth; the manslaughter verdict therefore stood.


Dir. of Pub. Prosecutions v. Camplin, [1978] A.C. 705 (H.L.)