1B - Voluntary Manslaughter - Loss of Control Flashcards
Where can the defence of loss of control be found?
s.54 and s.55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009
Step 1: s.54 (1)
Where a person (D) kills or is party to the killing of another (V), D is not to be convicted of murder if-
Step 2: s.54 (1)(a)
D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D’s loss of control
The first requirement is that the defendant has lost self-control
loss of self control isn’t defined- jury to decide whether they believe that the defendant did lose self control (expected to draw upon their life experience when considering evidence to decide if it’s satisfied)
Restrictions
- has to be a ‘total’ loss of control
- temper and anger aren’t allowed
- cannot be for revenge (s.54(4))
R v Jewell - Did the D act with considered judgement?
Step 3: s.54 (2)
doesn’t matter whether the loss of control was sudden
the effect of provocation can be cummulative and have a ‘slow burn’ effect
Dawes shows different people react in different ways
R v Jewell the CoA said that a person may have lost self-control if they: ‘lost their ability to maintain his actions in accordance with considered judgement’ but in R v Dawes the Court of Appeal said normal irritation and even serious anger was not enough
Step 4: s.54(4)
s.54(1) doesn’t apply if the D acted out of a considered desire for revenge
Step 5: s.54(1)(b)
the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger (found in s.55)
Step 6: s.55 (3)
applies if the D’s loss of control self-control was attributable to D’s fear of serious violence from V against D or to another person
^^^ fear trigger
R v Ward - brother
Step 7: s.55(6)(a) - determining whether loss of control had a qualifying trigger
D’s fear of serious violence is to be disregarded to the extent that it was caused by a thing which D incited to be done or said for the purpose of providing an excuse to use violence
^^^ cannot incite fear
Step 8: s.55(4)
applies if the D’s loss of self-control was attributable to a thing or things done or said (or both) which
a) constitutes circumstances of an extremely gravity character
b) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
^^^ anger trigger
R v Zebedee
s.55(4) restrictions
no defence if the D incited the things done to said to provide an excuse to use violence (s.55(6)(b))
breakup of a relationship is not grave or seriously wronged
s.55(4) - objective test
do the jury (reasonable person) believe it gave them a justification?
Hatter - end of a relationship doesn’t count as its a ‘normal day/life’ occurrence
s.55(4) excluded matters
- sexual infidelity - cannot amount to a qualifying trigger, however, it could be considered if it was integral to and formed an essential part of the contest where there were other factors that could be qualifying triggers
Step 9: s.55(6)(b) - determining whether a loss of control had a qualifying trigger
A sense of being seriously wronged by a thing done or said is not justifiable if D incited it to provide an excuse to use violence
^^^ cannot incite anger
Step 10: s.55(6)(c) - determining whether a loss of control had a qualifying trigger
the fact that a thing does or said constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded
cheating on a partner cannot be used alone
s.55(6)(c) - restrictions
If the circumstances are related to sexual infidelity alone, then this is to be disregarded
R v Clinton - sexual infidelity can be taken into account when looking at the whole circumstance
R v Dawes - can be an accumulation
The trigger may be caused by a series of events. In Dawes, Lord Judge said: ‘the loss of control may follow from the cumulative impact of earlier events’
