1B.2.2 Voluntary manslaughter Flashcards
Voluntary manslaughter
When the defendant appears to satisfy the actus reus and mens rea of murder, but a special defence applies which reduces the murder charge to manslaughter.
What are the two special defences which turn an offence from murder to voluntary manslaughter?
- Loss of control
- Diminished Responsibility
Which act governs Loss of Control?
s54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
Which act governs Diminished Responsibility?
s2 of the Homicide Act 1957 as amended by s52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
Are diminished responsibility and loss of control full or partial defences?
Partial defences - meaning that the defendant will not be completely acquitted, and instead the offence of murder is reduced to manslaughter.
Why is the verdict of manslaughter important?
It gives the judge some discretion when passing a sentence.
- When a person is found guilty of murder, there is a mandatory life sentence. However, for manslaughter the judge can give a lesser sentence when suitable.
What must be proved for loss of control?
- The defendant must have lost self-control.
- There must be a qualifying trigger.
- A person of the same sex and age would have reacted in the same way as the defendant in the same circumstances.
Qualifying triggers for loss of control
s55 sets out the qualifying triggers for loss of control:
- s55(3) Fear of serious violence OR
- s55(4) A thing said or done that was of extremely grave character and caused the D to have justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
Qualifying trigger: Fear of serious violence
Fear of serious violence against the defendant or other identifiable person. (Ward).
It cannot be a general fear of violence. Where the D has incited the violence, they cannot rely on the qualifying trigger of fear of violence – as held in R v Dawes.
Ward (2012)
D killed V from a fear of serious violence against his brother The other person must be identifiable and not just anyone
Dawes (2013)
D found his wife and V together ‘legs entwined’. D killed V.
Held: D could not rely on fear of violence where he had incited the violence.
Qualifying trigger: Things said or done
The jury decides whether a reasonable person would lose control.
The question of whether the circumstances are extremely grave and whether the defendant had a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged should be judged objectively, and not as a matter of opinion.
- Cases: Zebedee (2012) and Bowyer (2013).
Zebedee (2012)
D lost control when his 94-year-old father repeatedly soiled himself. He killed his father. He put forward the defence of loss of control. The court ruled that the circumstances were not extremely grave or made the D have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. He was convicted of murder.
Bowyer (2013)
D went to V’s home to burgle him. During the burglary V told D that he was D’s girlfriends’ pimp. D beat him & tied him up. He died the next day. Held: The defendant had no justifiable sense of being wronged as he was committing a burglary.
When can the defence of loss of control not be relied on?
Cannot rely on the defence if:
- the defendant incited the things said or done as excuse to use violence
- the defendant incited the things that caused sense of being seriously wronged.
- the things said or done was sexual infidelity.
- Case: Clinton
R v Clinton
D and his wife suffered from depression and required medication. He lost control due to a number of factors and killed his wife as she had just told him she was cheating. Held: the defence of loss of control should be decided by the jury.
[Loss of Control]
Standard of self-control
A person of the defendant’s age, sex with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint in the circumstances of the defendant might have reacted the same or in a similar way.
- In the case of Rejmanski (2017), the court held a mental disorder may be relevant circumstances of the defendant but cannot be relevant to the question of the normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint exercised.
[Loss of control]
Sufficient evidence
The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 states the judge has to decide whether there is sufficient evidence of each of the three components before they can leave the defence of loss of control to the jury.
s54(5) and s54(6) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 states that if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue with respect to the defence of loss of control, the jury must assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not.
- Case: Christian.
Christian (2018)
The defendant fatally stabbed the two victims during an altercation in their shared living accommodation about the temperature of the water in the communal shower.
The judge ruled that loss of control should not be left to the jury in this case as, although there was evidence of both a loss of control and a qualifying trigger, the defendant’s reaction was so extreme and so protracted that no jury could conclude that the notional reasonable person might have reacted or behaved in the same or a similar way.
[Loss of control]
The defendant must have lost self-control
s54(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 sets out that the defendant’s loss of self-control does not have to be sudden.
Whether the defendant lost self-control will be a matter for the jury to decide and will have to be a total loss of self-control – a partial loss is not sufficient.
Temper, anger or a reaction out of character are not sufficient. The defendant must have really ‘lost it’, or ‘snapped’.
- In R v Jewell (2014), the fact that the defendant was unwell, sleeping badly, tired, depressed and unable to think straight was not enough to prove that there was loss of control.
Where the defendant has the normal capacity of self-restraint and tolerate then, unless the circumstances were extremely grave, any normal irritation or even serious anger will not come within ‘loss of control’ for the Act’s purpose.
Jewell (2014)
D claimed he was sleep deprived, unwell, depressed and unable to think straight when he shot V at point blank range. Held: this was not considered enough for loss of control.
Diminished responsibility
Any person who kills another is not to be convicted of murder if they were suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which:
a) arose from a recognised medical condition,
b) substantially impaired the defendant’s ability to:
i. understand the nature of his conduct, or
ii. form of a rational judgement, or
iii. exercise self control, and
c) provides an explanation for the defendant’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.
Four stage test for diminished responsibility
- Whether the defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning.
- If so, whether it had arisen from a recognised medical condition.
- If so, whether it had substantially impaired their ability either to understand the nature of their conduct or to form a rational judgement or to exercise self-control.
- If so, whether it provided an explanation for their conduct.
[Diminished Responsibility]
Abnormality of mental functioning
An abnormality of mental functioning is ‘a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal’ – R v Byrne.
R v Byrne (1960)
D was a ‘sexual psychopath’ who strangled, beheaded and mutilated victims. Convicted of manslaughter because the medical evidence was that, because of his condition, he was unable to control his perverted desires.
[Diminished Responsibility]
Recognised medical condition
The term ‘recognised medical condition’ is wide enough to cover:
- Psychological and physical conditions
- Any recognised mental disorder
- Any physical condition which affects mental functioning such as epilepsy, sleep disorders or diabetes.
The defence must produce medical evidence of a recognised medical condition in the trial. This will likely be presented by an expert witness.
* It was held in R v Conroy (2017) that Autism Spectrum Disorder is a ‘recognised medical condition’.
* It was held in R v Squelch (2017) that paranoid personality disorder was a ‘recognised medical condition’.
[Diminished Responsibility]
Substantially impaired
The abnormality of mental functioning must substantially impair the defendant’s mental responsibility for his acts or omissions in doing or being a party to the killing. Whether this is the case is normally decided by jury.
In the case of Lloyd it was held that ‘substantial’ does not mean total, trivial or minimal - but someone in between. It is a matter for the jury to decide.
Another case: Golds (2016).
[Diminished Responsibility]
What must be substantially impaired?
Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the defendant’s ability to do one of three things must be substantially impaired:
- To understand the nature of his conduct
- To form a rational judgement
- To exercise self-control
[DR: Condition to be substantially impaired]
Ability to understand the nature of his conduct
This covers situations such as where the defendant is in an automatic state, does not know what he or she is doing or suffers from delusions. It also covers people with severe learning difficulties.
[DR: Condition to be substantially impaired]
Ability to form a rational judgement
The concept of rational judgement was introduced by the 2009 act but is not defined there.
Those suffering from paranoia, schizophrenia or Battered Spouse Syndrome may well not be able to form a rational judgement. The jury may consider all relevant circumstances before or after the killing.
[DR: Condition to be substantially impaired]
Ability to exercise self-control
This was the situation in the case of Byrne.
Byrne was a sexual psychopath, and this condition meant he was unable to control his perverted desires. The defence of diminished responsibility was therefore available to him.
Recognised medical condition
The abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for the defendant’s conduct
The defendant has to prove that the abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for his acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.
Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, there must now be some causal connection between the defendant’s abnormality of mental functioning and the killing.
The abnormality of mental functioning does not have to be the only factor which caused the defendant to do or be involved in the killing. However, it must be a significant factor. This is particularly important where the defendant is intoxicated at the time of the killing.
Can intoxication alone support a case of diminished responsibility?
No - as seen in the case of Dowds (2012).
Can the defence of diminished responsibility be used if the defendant is intoxicated at the time he does the killing?
In the case of Dietschmann (2003), it was held:
- If the defendant has a recognised medical condition, and is intoxicated, they can use defence but the abnormality of the mind must come from the recognised medical condition.
There is a recognised medical condition called alcohol dependency syndrome (ADS). This means that the person cannot control their drinking. The case of Stewart established a three-stage-test for juries to consider where the D was intoxicated and puts forward DR as a defence.
Stewart (2009)
Test for juries to consider where D was intoxicated and puts forward DR as defence
1. Was D suffering from abnormality of the mind (Byrne)?
2. If so, was D’s abnormality caused by ADS?
3. If so, was D’s abilities substantially impaired? This would involve such matters as the extent and seriousness of his dependency and the extent to which they could control their drinking.
