1B - Voluntary Manslaughter - Case List Flashcards
DR - Challen
Coercive control became a criminal offence in 2015 which was 4 years after Challen was convicted for bludgeoned her husband to death with a hammer after psychologically abusing her for 40 years
DR - R v Byrne - substantial
Stated that measuring the term ‘substantial’ is for the jury to decide
DR - R v Byrne - test
‘abnormality of mind…means a state of mind so different from the ordinary human being that the reasonable man would term it abnormal
DR - R v Brennan
Expert medical evidence must be provided to prove there is a medical condition
DR - R v Lloyd
The court defined substantial to not mean total or trivial or minimal - it’s for the jury to decide
DR - R v Golds
Judge isn’t ordinarily required to define the everyday term ‘substantially’ and should only happen when there’s a risk the jury won’t understand the meaning of the word.
‘substantially impaired’ was held to mean a serious degree of impairment and should be left to the jury to decide
DR - R v Dowds
Voluntary intoxication on its own is not enough to constitute diminished responsibility
DR - R v Dietschmann
If, ignoring the effects of intoxication, D has an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a medically recognised condition that substantially impaired D’s condition, then he may have a defence
DR - R v Wood
If prolonged use of alcohol has caused a condition such as Alcohol Dependancy Syndrom then the condition may have caused brain damage so that D’s ability to do the things in s.2(1A) are substantially impaired OR the craving for a drink was such as to render D’s use of drink involuntary
DR - R v Stewart
Developed a three-stage test for the jurors to consider (case related to ADS)
DR - recognised medical conditions - Speake
Learning difficulties/impaired cognitive development
DR - recognised medical conditions - Byrne
Psychopathy/paranoia/personality disorder
DR - recognised medical conditions - R v Seers
Epilepsy/stress/depression
DR - recognised medical conditions - Reynolds
PMS
DR - recognised medical conditions - Sanderson
Mental and physical diseases that affect the mind
DR - recognised medical conditions - Ahluwalia
Battered women’s syndrome
LOC - R v Dawes
Where the D has normal capacity of self-restraint and tolerance, then, unless the circumstances were extremely grave, any normal irritation or even serious anger will not come within ‘loss of control’ for Acts’ purposes
LOC - R v Jewell
A person may have lost self-control if they ‘lost their ability to maintain his actions in accordance with considered judgment’
LOC - R v Ward
D does not have to fear violence by V, fear of violence against another person can amount to a qualifying trigger
LOC - R v Clinton
Sexual infidelity can be taken into account when looking at the whole circumstances
LOC - R v Zebedee
That for ‘things done or things said’ to be a qualifying trigger they must be circumstances of an extremely grave character and D must have a justifiable sense of being wronged
LOC - R v Hatter
Breakups will not be judges grave or seriously wronged. The ending of a relationship doesn’t count as its a ‘normal day/life’ occurrence
LOC - R v Bowyer
Did the D have a justifiable sense of being wronged?
LOC - R v Asmelash
His intoxication couldn’t be taken into account when pleading loss of control
DR - R v Byrne - Case facts
D was a sexual psychopath who strangled and mutilated a young woman. Medical evidence was that due to his conviction he was unable to control his perverted desires. Convicted of murder but the CoA quashed the conviction and substituted for manslaughter
LOC - s.2 - R v Jewell compared to R v Dawes
In Jewell, the CoA said a person may have lost self-control if they ‘lost their ability to maintain his actions in accordance with considered judgment’ but in Dawes, the CoA said normal irritation and even serious anger was not enough
LOC - R v Dawes - Lord Judge
‘provided there was a loss of control, it doesn’t matter whether the loss was sudden or not. A reaction to circumstances of extreme gravity may be delayed. Different individuals in different situations do not react identically, nor respond immediately’
LOC - R v Dawes - In relation to s.55(3)
There will be no defence if the D incited the violence (s.55(6)(a) Coroners and Justice Act 2009) for the purpose of providing an excuse to use the violence
