Trial judge properly explained the subjective nature of provocation to jury

Criminal law – murder conviction appeal – whether the appropriate verdict was one of murder or one of manslaughter – whether the trial judge erred in law in failing to instruct the jury adequately or at all in relation to the subjective nature of provocation – lies told by the appellant – the mental element of murder – the effect of s. 4(2) of the Act of 1964 – instructions in relation to the expert evidence of the pathologist – judge left the jury in no doubt that the test was subjective and that their interest was in the situation of the accused on trial – relationship between provocation and mens rea properly explained to the jury – Lucas warning – specific directions on the difference between harm and serious harm – trial judge’s treatment of the standard of malice issue was quite adequate – presumption that the accused intended the natural and probable consequences of his actions – expert evidence – appeal dismissed.