Providing resources for studying law
Custom Search
   Home      R v Ibrams & Gregory
R v Ibrams & Gregory (1982) 74 Cr App R 154

The two appellants had been harassed and terrorised by John Monk. Ibram's girlfriend ,Andronik, left him to start a relationship with Monk. However, Monk was extremely violent towards her leading her to flee the country. She returned to the UK and resumed the relationship with Ibrams. Monk was serving a sentence in Borstal. However, on his release, Monk started visiting the couple using violence and making threats and forcing Andronik to sleep with him. The police had been informed of the events but did not take any action. On one of his visits Gregory a, friend of the couple witnessed the violence. They hatched a plan whereby, Andronik would invite Monk round, get him drunk and entice him into bed. Ibrams and Gregory would then burst in and beat him up. In fact the two appellants went further than planned and killed Monk. They stated that once they started beating him they lost their control. The trial judge did not allow the defence of provocation to be put before the jury as the planning indicated that there was no sudden and temporary loss of self control. The defendants appealed.


The appeal was dismissed.

Lawton LJ:
"They carried out the plan. They were masters of their minds when carrying it out, because they worked out the details with considerable skill; and in pursuing the plan as they did on the Friday night they were still masters of their own minds. They were doing what they had planned to do. When they went into Monk's bedroom and Gregory struck the first blow that again was pursuant to the plan which had been worked out, and they were masters of their own minds. It follows, in our judgment, that Mr. Justice McNeill was right in ruling that there was no evidence of loss of self-control. In those circumstances the appeal will be dismissed.

The Court wishes to say that this case is a most unusual one, and had it not been for the appalling criminal behaviour of the dead man these two appellants would not today be serving sentences of life imprisonment for murder. It is to be hoped that a copy of this judgment will be sent to the appropriate department of the Home Office, and that the parole board will as soon as possible be alerted to the very unusual and very disturbing facts of this case."
Back to lecture outline on the defence of provocation or loss of control