Under which circumstance is provocation negated according to the guidance from the Law Reform Commission?

The circumstance under which provocation is negated is when the provocation was incited by the accused. This principle recognizes that for a claim of provocation to hold, the provoking act must come from an external source rather than from the actions of the accused themselves. The rationale behind this is to maintain a standard that prevents individuals from inciting a situation and then claiming provocation when they respond violently. This ensures that the legal system is not exploited by those who may wish to evade responsibility for their actions after provoking a situation intentionally.

In contrast, planning a crime beforehand would demonstrate premeditation, which typically undermines a defense based on spontaneity associated with provocation. Being under the influence could mitigate personal responsibility in some contexts, but it does not negate provocation itself as a legal defense. Verbal-only provocation may not be sufficient to establish the defense of provocation, as it often hinges on whether the provocation involved a physical or immediate threat that could lead to a loss of self-control. Thus, the focus on incited provocation effectively safeguards the integrity of the provocation defense.