In this, the accused Singh defence was that his wife provocative words were the reason for him killing her. The jury considered two possibilities. It was deemed in the courts that Singh losing his self-control was justified. Singh was convicted for manslaughter and acquitted for murder. Similar to this, the defence that Frank states is that the act of hitting him in public had caused Frank to want to hurt Andrew. He could state the extreme cases of being instigated. The second factor is that Frank’s lawyer must convince the jury that this act could have been done by an ordinary person. The case of Singh v R  NSWSC 637 can be used as an example in this case. The new amendment act has a four stage process; they are the conduct that has caused the death of the person, provocation of the conduct, and conduct of victim causing the accused to act in a manner of losing self-control and how a reasonable person would have lost self-control given the circumstances. In the case of R v Chhay (1994) 72 A Crim R 1, the loss of self-control was due to fear, resentment or anger. These must have been presented during the time of the killing. Conduct must have instigated these sentiments. The sense of: Van Den Hoek v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 158 at 167 can also be used as a reference point to explain about the notions of provocation. The loss of self-control can even be triggered after a long period. In this, context of ordinary person of the same age and maturity can also act in different manner. This can be based on the subjective factors in the situation. The case of Stingel v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 312 at 327 shows that the individuals can act in a different manner based on the nature of events that pervade the particular situation. However, it must be noted that the accused depression is not the only factor that is taken into account. The case of Ziha v R  NSWCCA 27 at  can be used to explain the clauses that are considered for the specific cases. In the analysis, the definition of ordinary person needs to be considered and their viewpoints need to be factored. The definition of the ordinary person needs to be probed in order to understand the concept of ordinary person. This has been explained in the following.
There is an imperative need to analyse the meaning of an ordinary person. The sections that explain about the ordinary person were explained in section 23(2) (a) and (b) crimes act. The action of Section 23 (a) was considered if the act of the accused causes the death and if that was in response to the conduct of the deceased. The (b) sections explain that the act of the deceased was a serious indictable offence. This was considered in the case of Green v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 334 and in the case of Masciantonio v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 58. The act of Andrew hitting Frank, causing him to get a nose bleed and a broken chin can be considered as a culpable crime. This can reduce the moral culpability of Frank and could lead to reduced sentence. There has been critique about the institutional base where the men are assumed to have reactive anger and the women might act out of fear. The provocation law needs to be aligned with the responses during those times. Another notion that needs to be considered is the notions of excessive self defense.