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.
What principle is the case of R v Zebedee (2012) an example of?
Give brief facts.
Principle: ‘Things said or done’-under s 55(4) things must be grave and cause D justifiable sense of being wronged.
Facts: D killed father with Alzheimer’s-claimed loss of control-jury found no justification for loss of control. D convicted of murder.
The fact that a ‘thing said or done’ amounted to sexual infidelity has been disregarded in what act and section?
s55(6)(c) Coroners and Justice Act (2009)
What is the significance of s55(6)(c) Coroners and Justice Act (2009) regarding ‘things said and done’?
The fact that a ‘thing said or done’ amounted to sexual infidelity has been disregarded as supporting the qualifying trigger.
The case of R v Clinton (2012) is an example of what principle?
Give brief facts.
Principle: that the ‘thing said or done’ can still be sexual infidelity if it amounts to ‘grave circumstances or D feels wronged’
Facts: V cheats on D who suffers depression. V taunts D about sexual exploits and that D should kill himself. D murders V.
What case supports the principle that the ‘thing said or done’ can still be sexual if it amounts to ‘grave circumstances or D feels wronged?
Give brief facts.
R v Clinton (2012)
Facts: V cheats on D who suffers depression. V taunts D about sexual exploits and that D should kill himself. D murders V.
What principle does the case of Ibrams and Gregory (1981) illustrate?
Give brief facts.
Principle: That murder after having time to consider revenge cannot constitute a loss of control.
Facts: D’s conspired to kill V after V threatened them. Several days later they killed V but were found guilty of murder as there was no sudden loss of control.
What case illustrates the principle that pre meditated revenge cannot constitute a loss of control?
Give brief facts.
Ibrams and Gregory (1981)
Facts: D’s conspired to kill V after V threatened them. Several days later they killed V but were found guilty of murder as there was no sudden loss of control.
What case illustrates an occasion where an element of revenge was present but the D was still allowed the part-defence of loss of control?
Give brief facts.
R v Baillie (1995)
Facts: D son was threatened by drug dealer (V). D drove to V house to kill him. D charged with voluntary manslaughter.
What principle does the case of R v Rejmanski (2017) illustrate?
Give brief facts.
Principle: loss of control must be proven to be similar actions of someone of D sex and age.
Facts: D killed flatmate (V) in drunken feud at flat.
What case illustrates the principle that loss of control must be proven to be similar actions of someone of D sex and age?
Give brief facts.
R v Rejmanski (2017)
Facts: D killed flatmate (V) in drunken feud at flat.
In what ways is the defence of loss of control ‘wider’ than the previous defence of ‘provocation’?
1) loss of control doesn’t have to be sudden
2) a fear of serious violence is an additional matter to be considered
In what way is the defence of loss of control ‘narrower’ than the previous defence of ‘provocation’?
Sexual infidelity is not allowed as a qualifying trigger.
What is diminished responsibility?
A part-defence to a murder charge which reduces the verdict to one of voluntary manslaughter.
What act originally set out the defence of diminished responsibility?
s2 Homicide Act 1957
s2 Homicide Act 1957 was the original legislation that made provisions for which part-defence?
Diminished responsibility
What Act and section amended the provisions in s2 Homicide Act 1957 for the part-defence of diminished responsibility?
s52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009
s52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 amended the provisions in which Act regarding the defence of diminished responsibility?
s2 Homicide Act 1957
What are the component parts of the definition of a part-defence of diminished responsibility?
1-D kills or party to killing not to be convicted of murder if suffering from abnormality of mental functioning which-
(a) recognised medical condition
(b) impaired D ability to do things mentioned in ss 1A
(c) provides explanation for D actions
1A those things are-
(a) understand nature of D conduct
(b) form rational judgment
(c) exercise self control
1B-abnormality of mental functioning provides explanation for D actions
What does s2(1) Homicide Act 1957 state regarding defence of diminished responsibility?
1-D kills or party to killing not to be convicted of murder if suffering from abnormality of mental functioning which-
(a) recognised medical condition
(b) impaired D ability to do things mentioned in ss 1A
(c) provides explanation for D actions
What does s2(1A) Homicide Act 1957 state regarding defence of diminished responsibility?
1A those things are-
(a) understand nature of D conduct
(b) form rational judgment
(c) exercise self control
What does s2(1B) Homicide Act 1957 state regarding defence of diminished responsibility?
1B-abnormality of mental functioning provides explanation for D actions
D kills or party to killing not to be convicted of murder if suffering from abnormality of mental functioning which-
(a) recognised medical condition
(b) impaired D ability to do things mentioned in ss 1A
(c) provides explanation for D actions
What Act and section is this from?
s2(1) Homicide Act 1957
those things are-
(a) understand nature of D conduct
(b) form rational judgment
(c) exercise self control
What Act and section is this from?
s2(1A) Homicide Act 1957
abnormality of mental functioning provides explanation for D actions
What Act and section is this from?
s2(1B) Homicide Act 1957
What is the burden of proof for proving diminished responsibility?
On the balance of probabilities-but the defence must prove this.
What case is an example of a defence of diminished responsibility on the grounds of abnormality of mental functioning?
Give brief facts.
R v Byrne (1960)
Facts: D was ‘sexual psychopath’. Murder conviction quashed as he was unable to control perverted desires.
The case of R v Byrne (1960) is an example of what part-defence?
Diminished responsibility-on the grounds of abnormality of mental functioning.
What three things must be substantially impaired regarding an abnormality of mental functioning?
A) Understand-the nature of D conduct
B) Rational-form a rational judgment
C) Exercise-self-control
What does the case of R v Golds (2016) signify regarding diminished responsibility?
That the meaning of ‘substantial’ (regarding substantially impaired) can be put to the jury unless there is a lack of evidence to provide the jury with.
What case supports the principle that the meaning of the word ‘substantial’ can be put to the jury?
Give brief facts.
R v Golds (2016)
Facts: D killed partner and attempted defence of diminished responsibility. Judge didn’t have to define word ‘substantially’ to jury. D charged with murder.
What principle does the case of R v Dowd (2012) support?
Give brief facts.
Principle: That voluntary drunkenness cannot constitute diminished responsibility.
Facts: D got drunk, killed girlfriend. Claimed diminished responsibility as ‘couldn’t remember’-charged with murder.
What case supports the principle that voluntary drunkenness is not diminished responsibility?
Give brief facts.
R v Dowd (2012)
Facts: D got drunk, killed girlfriend. Claimed diminished responsibility as ‘couldn’t remember’-charged with murder.
What principle does the case of R v Dietschmann (2003) support?
Give brief facts.
Principle: that in toxification doesn’t magnify pre-existing abnormality of mental functioning.
Facts: V taunted D who’s aunt had recently died. D killed V whilst drunk. Psychiatrists agreed there was abnormality of mental functioning but not enough to be substantial.
What case supports the principle that in toxification doesn’t magnify pre-existing abnormality of mental functioning?
Give brief facts.
R v Dietschmann (2003)
Facts: V taunted D who’s aunt had recently died. D killed V whilst drunk. Psychiatrists agreed there was abnormality of mental functioning but not enough to be substantial.
What principle does the case of R v Wood (2008) support?
Give brief facts.
Principle: involuntary drinking can constitute diminished responsibility.
Facts: D was alcoholic and killed V. Court had to decide whether Alcohol had damaged his brain and if not that the drinking of alcohol was involuntary due to alcoholism.
D guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
What case supports the principle that involuntary drinking (alcoholism for example) can constitute diminished responsibility?
Give brief facts.
R v Wood (2008)
Facts: D was alcoholic and killed V. Court had to decide whether Alcohol had damaged his brain and if not that the drinking of alcohol was involuntary due to alcoholism.
D guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
What act provides for the defence of diminished responsibility?
s2 Homicide Act 1957
As amended by s52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009
