You can edit almost every page by Creating an account. Otherwise, see the FAQ.

Attorney General for Jersey v Holley

From EverybodyWiki Bios & Wiki


Attorney General for Jersey v Holley
CourtJudicial Committee of the Privy Council
Full case nameHer Majesty's Attorney General for Jersey v Dennis Peter Holley
Decided15 June 2005 (2005-06-15)
Citation(s)
  • [2005] UKPC 23
  • [2005] 2 AC 580
  • [2005] 3 WLR 29
  • [2005] 3 All ER 371
Transcript(s)Full text of the judgment
Case opinions
  • Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead (for the majority)
  • Lord Bingham of Cornhill and Lord Hoffmann (dissenting)
  • Lord Carswell (dissenting)

Attorney General for Jersey v Holley [2005] UKPC 23, is a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the defence of provocation as a partial defence to murder under Jersey law.

Facts[edit]

Judgment[edit]

Significance[edit]

Precedence value in England and Wales[edit]

Decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are considered to be persuasive authorities in England and Wales, and as such are not binding upon the courts.[1] The decision in Holley departed from the precedent set in R v Smith (Morgan)[note 1].[2]

Case citations[edit]

  1. [2001] 1 AC 146

References[edit]

  1. Law, Jonathan, ed. (2018). "Judicial Committee of the Privy Council". A Dictionary of Law (9th ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191840807. Retrieved 29 May 2021. Search this book on
  2. Elvin, Jesse (September 2006). "The Doctrine of Precedent and the Provocation Defence: A Comment on R v James". The Modern Law Review. Blackwell Publishing. 69 (5): 819–842 – via JSTOR.

External links[edit]


This article "Attorney General for Jersey v Holley" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:Attorney General for Jersey v Holley. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.