Skip to content
© Copyright, Criminal Cases Review Commission 2025.

Farnell, Nicholas

Published:

Nicholas Farnell was convicted in March 1996 of murder and received a sentence of life imprisonment.

The CCRC received an application for review of the conviction in June 1997.

Mr Farnell had killed one of his neighbours by swinging a car jack at them in the course of an argument about the victim’s dog barking at night, which had been causing Mr Farnell to lose sleep.

At the time of the offence, Mr Farnell had been suffering from depression.

The trial took place before the House of Lords had ruled in the case of Morgan Smith that where provocation was raised as a defence to murder, the jury should be directed to consider whether there were any “personal characteristics” affecting the susceptibility of the defendant to react to provocative words or conduct.

Persons convicted pre-Morgan Smith were thus able to argue that since the jury had not been directed in these terms, their convictions were based upon wrong directions of law and, accordingly, unsafe.

At Mr Farnell’s trial, the defence told the jury that the case was being argued on the basis of diminished responsibility and not provocation.

The judge in his summing up left the alternative possibility of provocation with the jury but told them that since the defence was disavowing it, the issue of provocation should not detain them long.

The CCRC referred the conviction in October 2003 on the grounds that evidence of depression at the time of the offence supported (post-Morgan Smith) a defence of provocation.

In addition, the judge by the terms of his summing up had erroneously withdrawn provocation from the jury.

The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction in April 2004.