1B - Voluntary Manslaughter - Case List

Question 1

DR - Challen

Answer 1

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

Question 2

DR - R v Byrne - substantial

Answer 2

Stated that measuring the term ‘substantial’ is for the jury to decide

Question 3

DR - R v Byrne - test

Answer 3

‘abnormality of mind…means a state of mind so different from the ordinary human being that the reasonable man would term it abnormal

Question 4

DR - R v Brennan

Answer 4

Expert medical evidence must be provided to prove there is a medical condition

Question 5

DR - R v Lloyd

Answer 5

The court defined substantial to not mean total or trivial or minimal - it’s for the jury to decide

Question 6

DR - R v Golds

Answer 6

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

Question 7

DR - R v Dowds

Answer 7

Voluntary intoxication on its own is not enough to constitute diminished responsibility

Question 8

DR - R v Dietschmann

Answer 8

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

Question 9

DR - R v Wood

Answer 9

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

Question 10

DR - R v Stewart

Answer 10

Developed a three-stage test for the jurors to consider (case related to ADS)

Question 11

DR - recognised medical conditions - Speake

Answer 11

Learning difficulties/impaired cognitive development

Question 12

DR - recognised medical conditions - Byrne

Answer 12

Psychopathy/paranoia/personality disorder

Question 13

DR - recognised medical conditions - R v Seers

Answer 13

Epilepsy/stress/depression

Question 14

DR - recognised medical conditions - Reynolds

Answer 14

PMS

Question 15

DR - recognised medical conditions - Sanderson

Answer 15

Mental and physical diseases that affect the mind

Question 16

DR - recognised medical conditions - Ahluwalia

Answer 16

Battered women’s syndrome

Question 17

LOC - R v Dawes

Answer 17

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

Question 18

LOC - R v Jewell

Answer 18

A person may have lost self-control if they ‘lost their ability to maintain his actions in accordance with considered judgment’

Question 19

LOC - R v Ward

Answer 19

D does not have to fear violence by V, fear of violence against another person can amount to a qualifying trigger

Question 20

LOC - R v Clinton

Answer 20

Sexual infidelity can be taken into account when looking at the whole circumstances

Question 21

LOC - R v Zebedee

Answer 21

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

Question 22

LOC - R v Hatter

Answer 22

Breakups will not be judges grave or seriously wronged. The ending of a relationship doesn’t count as its a ‘normal day/life’ occurrence

Question 23

LOC - R v Bowyer

Answer 23

Did the D have a justifiable sense of being wronged?

Question 24

LOC - R v Asmelash

Answer 24

His intoxication couldn’t be taken into account when pleading loss of control

Question 25

DR - R v Byrne - Case facts

Answer 25

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

Question 26

LOC - s.2 - R v Jewell compared to R v Dawes

Answer 26

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

Question 27

LOC - R v Dawes - Lord Judge

Answer 27

‘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’

Question 28

LOC - R v Dawes - In relation to s.55(3)

Answer 28

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