4: Voluntary Manslaughter

Question 1

what type of defence is voluntary manslaughter

Answer 1

special and partial defence to murder

Question 2

two partial defences to murder

Answer 2

• diminished responsibility
• loss of control

Question 3

result of successfully pleading the partial defence of diminished responsibility or loss of control

Answer 3

• verdict of ‘not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter’
• murder will drop down to voluntary manslaughter
• judge does not have to pass a life sentence (mandatory for murder)

Question 4

what is diminished responsibility charged under

Answer 4

Homicide Act 1957
as amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Question 5

what happens if D raises diminished responsibility

Answer 5

must be proved on the balance of probabilities

Question 6

define diminished responsibility

Answer 6

D kills V whilst suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which
(a) arose from a recognised medical
condition
(b) substantially impaired D’s ability to
- understand the nature of his conduct
- form a rational judgment
- exercise self-control
(c) provides an explanation for Ds actors and omissions in doing or being party to the killing

Question 7

explain abnormality of mental functioning

include case

Answer 7

in R v Byrne Lord Parker classes ‘abnormality of mind’ as a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal

Question 8

explain ‘arising from a recognised medical condition’

Answer 8

• diminished responsibility is much wider than that of insanity as it allows for irresistible impulses.
• it covers both physical and psychiatric conditions.
• the jury has to be satisfied that Ds abnormality arose from a medical condition.
• there just be appropriate medical evidence for the condition.

Question 9

‘arising from a recognised medical condition’: examples and cases

Answer 9

• Byrne: sexual psychopathology
• Seers: Chronic depression
• Ahluwalia: Battered woman’s syndrome
• Dietschmann: depression, adjustment disorder
• Wood: Alcohol dependency syndrome
• Cambell: Epilepsy
• Smith: Pre-menstrual tension
• Reynolds: Post Natal depression
• Conroy: Autism spectrum disorder
• Martin: Paranoia
• Bradley: PTSD
• diabetes
• sleep disorder
• schizophrenia
• personality disorders

Question 10

explain ‘substantial impairment of mental responsibility’

include cases

Answer 10

• question of whether the impairment was substantial was one of degree and one for the jury to decide (Byrne)
• substantial does not mean the abnormality totally impairs Ds mental responsibility but it must not be trivial or minimal. it is something in between (Lloyd)
• Golds confirmed the Lloyd interpretation of substantial: “it needed to be something more than trivial”
• the abnormality of mental functioning but have substantially impaired Ds ability to do one or more of three things:
  (1) understand the nature of his conduct (eg automatic state)
  (2) form a rational judgment (eg paranoia or BWS - Aluwalia)
  (3) exercise self-control (eg unable to control perverted desires - Byrne)

Question 11

explain ‘provides an explanation for Ds acts or omissions’

Answer 11

• D has to prove that the abnormality of mental functioning provided an explanation for his acts/omissions in doing or being a party to the killing
• Ds abnormality must cause the killing; it doesn’t have to be the only factor or main factor which caused D to do or be involved with the killing, but it must be a significant contributory factor

Question 12

explain how intoxication applies to diminished responsibility

include cases

Answer 12

(a) if D is suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning and is intoxicated at the time of the killing
- jury should disregard intoxication and decide whether the abnormality of mental functioning alone substantially impaired Ds ability (Egan, Dietschmann)
- Voluntary intoxication is not capable of being relied upon to found diminished responsibility on its own (Dowds)

(b) if Ds long term alcohol/drug abuse has led to a recognised medical condition (eg alcohol or drug dependency syndrome) which causes an abnormality
- Wood: ADS could be considered a possible source of abnormality of mental functioning by the jury. If they found this to be the case, they had to consider the effect of any alcohol consumed by D as a result of his dependency.
- Stewart: 3 stage test for jury to consider:
• was the syndrome such that it caused D to suffer an abnormality of mental functioning?
• if so, was Ds abnormality cause by the ADS?
• if so, did this abnormality of mental functioning substantially impair Ds ability to understand the nature of his conduct, to form a rational judgment, or to exercise self control?

Question 13

what is loss of control charged under?

Answer 13

• In old law, it was ‘provocation’.
• Was changed to loss of control and is now charged under ss 54-55 Coroners & Justice Act 2009

Question 14

Define Loss of Control

include section

Answer 14

s54(1)

Where a person (D) kills or is party to the killing of another (V), D is not to be convicted of murder if:
(a) Ds acts and omissions in doing or being party to the killing resulted from Ds loss of self-control
(b) the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger,
(c) a person of Ds sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D

Question 15

Explain ‘Loss of Control’

Answer 15

• does not have to be sudden
• but, the longer the delay between the qualifying trigger and the reaction of D, the less likely the partial defence will succeed (Ibrams & Gregory)
• Jewell the fact that D was unwell, sleeping badly, tired, depressed and ‘unable to think clearly’ was insufficient to amount to loss of control
• temper, anger or a reaction that is ‘out of character’ are not sufficient
• whether D lost self-control will be a matter for the jury to decide
• it has to be a total loss of control, a partial loss is insufficient

RESTRICTION: s54(4) : Partial defence will fail if the killing is motivated by a ‘considered desire for revenge’ (Ibrams, Baille)

Question 16

what are the ‘qualifying triggers’ for Loss of Control

Answer 16

• s55(3) fear trigger
• s55(4) anger trigger
• s55(5) combination of fear/anger trigger

Question 17

define and explain the fear trigger for LOC

include section
include cases

Answer 17

s55(3) : This subsection applies if ads loss of self-control was attributable to Ds fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person

• a subjective test based on Ds genuine (even if unreasonable) fear (Ward)
• a fear of violence against people generally is insufficient (Martin, Ahluwalia)

RESTRICTION: where D has been the one to incite violence, D cannot use the fear of violence as a qualifying trigger (Dawes)

Question 18

Define and explain the anger trigger as a qualifying trigger for LOC

include section
include cases

Answer 18

s55(4)

This subsection applies if Ds loss of self control was attributable to a thing or things done or said (or both) which:
(a) constituted circumstances or an extremely grace character (Hatter) and,
(b) also caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged (Zebedee)
- ‘justifiable’ indicates an objective test: what did D think and, did he have a right to think that way? Reasonable person test - jury has to conclude that D was in fact seriously wronged

Question 19

Define and explain the objective test for loss of control

include section
include cases

Answer 19

s54(1)(c) “person of the defendant’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to the D” (an objective test).
- (Camplin, Holley)

s54(3): “the circumstances of D” refers to all of D’s circumstances other than those that affect D’s general capacity for tolerance or self-restraint
- would be relevant if D subjected to years of abuse (Hill)
- not relevant if D has a short temper (Mohammed)
- would include sexual infidelity alongside other circumstances (Clinton)

Question 20

General restrictions for loss of control

Answer 20

• Incitement: Ds fear of serious violence is to be disregarded if D incited something to be done or said to provide him with an excuse to use violence (s55(6)(a)) (Dawes) or that caused in him as sense of being seriously wronged (s55(6)(b))
• Sexual infidelity: anything said or done in connection with sexual infidelity is to be disregarded (s55(6)(c)
  
  • However, Clinton confirms this will only apply when sexual infidelity is the only reason for the killing
• Revenge: s54(4) partial defence will fail if the killing is motivated by a ‘considered desire for revenge’ (Ibrams, Baille)