Rowland, Philip

Philip Rowland was convicted in February 1997 of murder and received a sentence of life imprisonment.

The CCRC received an application for review of the conviction in June 2001.

Mr Rowland had been accused of the murder of his wife and the case was defended on the basis of provocation (taunting).

Doctors who had examined Mr Rowland pre-trial had considered whether his psychiatric history justified a defence of diminished responsibility but concluded that the medical evidence did not go that far.

Mr Rowland’s 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 therefore 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.

In this case, the CCRC obtained fresh expert medical reports which supported the case that Mr Rowland’s psychiatric history would have likely affected his response to his wife’s provocations.

The CCRC concluded that there was a real possibility this evidence would have influenced the jury’s view of the level of self-control which Mr Rowland could have been expected to exercise in the face of the provocation he encountered.

The CCRC referred the conviction in May 2002.

The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction in November 2003 and substituted it for a conviction for manslaughter with a sentence of seven years’ imprisonment.