[6] To satisfy the burden, there must be evidence which both supported the issue and which is sufficiently substantial to raise a reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt.
He claimed his mother was injured in a fall, but the medical evidence demonstrated that the deceased died because of a sustained attack and was indicative of a possible loss of self-control from the defendant.
The defendant's appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed and he appealed to the House of Lords, the issue being: In a prosecution for murder, before the judge is obliged to leave the issue of provocation to the jury, must there be some evidence, either direct or inferential, as to what was either done or said to provoke the alleged loss of self-control?The House of Lords held that in the absence of any evidence, emerging from whatever source, which suggested the reasonable possibility that the defendant might have lost his self-control due to provoking conduct, the question of provocation did not arise and should not be put to the jury.
[9] The reason for imposing an evidential burden is to ensure the prosecution does not have to disprove all imaginable defences, only those properly supported by sufficient evidence.
Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest said in Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland:[10] As human behaviour may manifest itself in infinite varieties of circumstances it is perilous to generalize, but it is not every facile mouthing of some easy phrase of excuse that can amount to an explanation.