6-Voluntary manslaughter Flashcards
What are the two partial defences to a charge of murder and what will the charge be replaced by if successful?
1) Loss of control
2) Diminished responsibility
Voluntary manslaughter
Loss of control and diminished responsibility are part defences for murder that if proven will afford the D what offence in replacement?
Voluntary manslaughter
What is voluntary manslaughter?
the verdict when the D has a partial defence to murder.
1) Loss of control
2) Diminished responsibility
What act provides for the partial defence of 1) loss of control (provocation)
Coroners and Justice Act (2009)
The Coroners and Justice Act (2009) makes provisions for which two part-defences to a murder charge?
1) Loss of control
2) Diminished responsibility
What three components are needed for a defence of ‘Loss of control’?
1) the D must have lost self control
2) there must be a qualifying trigger
3) a person of the same sex and age would have reacted the same way as the D in the same circumstances
What Act and Section number gives provision for the defence of ‘Loss of control’?
s 54(1) Coroners and Justice Act (2009)
What case supports the principle that there must be a ‘loss of self-control’ regarding the partial defence to murder of ‘Loss of control’?
Give brief facts
R v Jewel (2014)
Facts: D shot V and claimed ‘loss of control’ but was found guilty of murder.
What principle does the case of R v Jewel (2014) illustrate?
Give brief facts.
Principle: loss of control as a defence to a murder charge.
Facts: D shot V and claimed ‘loss of control’ but was found guilty of murder.
What Act and section gives provisions that a ‘loss of self-control’ does not have to be sudden?
s 54(2) Coroners and Justice Act (2009)
s 54(2) Coroners and Justice Act (2009) gives specific provisions regarding the ‘loss of self control’ what are they?
That the ‘loss of self control’ does not have to be sudden.
What case relates to the provisions of s 54(2) Coroners and Justice Act (2009) and would have found a different verdict?
Give brief facts.
R v Ahluwalia (1992)
Facts: D was physically abused over a long period by V and killed him. Charged with murder as the ‘loss of control’ was not sudden.
The findings in R v Ahluwalia (1992) would have been different had the provisions in what act and section been active at the time of conviction?
What are the provisions?
s 54(2) Coroners and Justice Act (2009)
Provisions: That the ‘loss of control’ does not have to be sudden.
What Act and section gives provisions for the ‘qualifying trigger’ regarding the part-defence of ‘loss of control’?
s 55 Coroners and Justice Act (2009)
s 55 Coroners and Justice Act (2009) sets out what constituent part of the part-defence of ‘loss of control’?
Qualifying trigger
The qualifying triggers that mean D has ‘lost of control’ must be attributable to what two parts and sub-parts?
1) fear of violence against self or another (s 55(3)) or
2) a thing or things done or said (or both) which-
a) constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and
b) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being wronged (s 55(4))
s 55(3) Coroners and Justice Act (2009) sets out what specific circumstance regarding a ‘qualifying trigger’?
D must fear violence on self or another
What act and section sets out that D must fear violence on self or another as a qualifying trigger for a defence of ‘loss of control’?
s 55(3) Coroners and Justice Act (2009)
Under s 55(6)(a) Coroners and Justice Act (2009) what is set out regarding fear of violence?
That D cannot incite the violence to then claim fear of violence (R v Dawes 2013)
Under what act and section does it set out that D cannot claim ‘fear of serious violence’ as a defence if they incite the violence?
s 55(6)(a) Coroners and Justice Act (2009)
What case emphasises that D cannot claim fear of serious violence regarding a defence of ‘loss of control’ if D incites the violence?
As according to s55(6)(a) Coroners and Justice Act (2009)
Give brief facts
R v Dawes (2013)
Facts: D returned home to V sleeping with wife and caused commotion leading to V stabbing and death-D guilty of murder.
Under s 55(4) what are the two points that have to be shown for D to use ‘things done or said’ as a qualifying trigger?
Things said or done must be-
1) of ‘extremely grave character’ and
2) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
What two cases can be used as examples of the principle of things said or done?
R v doughty (1986)-D killed crying baby
R v Zebedee (2012)-D killed Alzheimer’s father
What principle is the case of R v Doughty (1986) an example of?
Give brief facts.
Principle: ‘Things said or done’-specifically this defence did not exist then and was instead provocation.
Facts: D killed crying baby and gave defence of provocation which was upheld. D guilty of manslaughter.