chapter 3- voluntary manslaughter Flashcards
R v Byrne
-D strangled a woman and mutilated her body
-Medical evidence was that as he was a sexual psychopath he was unable to control his desires
-The appeal court said that the question of whether the impairment was substantial was one of degree and the jury should decide
(Abnormality of mental functioning)
R v Lloyd
-held that ‘substantial’ does not mean total nor trivial or minimal
-The jury must decide if the d’s mental responsibility is impaired
-But the judge can withdraw the point from the jury if there is no evidence
(substantially impaired)
R v Golds
-D killed partner
-Medical evidence= had abnormality of mental functioning due to medical condition
-Judge refused to give extra definition to the ordinary meaning of substantial
-Supreme Court held that its up to the jury to decide if it substantial or trivial
(Substantially impaired)
R v Dowds
-Drunken college lecturer stabbed wife 60x
-Judge ruled that if parliament intended intoxication to be a factor, then it would have included it in the 2009 changes to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
(Diminished responsibility and intoxication)
R v Dietschmann
-D killed v and was later argued to be suffering from depressed grief
-D killed v because v seemed to dishonour the dead aunt
-If the jury finds it unlikely D would kill v without intoxication then the mental abnormality is not the reason for the act
(Diminished responsibility and intoxication)
R v Woods
-D was an alcoholic and killed v after waking up next to her
-Convicted but on appeal the Judge held that ADS (medical condition) was sufficient to successfully plead diminished responsibility
(Diminished responsibility and intoxication)
R v Stewart
-CoA set out a 3 stage test for juries to decide whether intoxication was voluntary or not in ADS cases
(Diminished responsibility and intoxication)
R v Jewell
-D shot V
-D arrested and found in possession of many weapons and a survival kit
-D said he ‘lost it’ outside of V’s house and his actions were a result of him being ‘unable to think straight’
-This was found to be insufficient
-Courts have developed the understanding of loss of control to mean:
*lost normal powers of reasoning
*lost ability to act with rational judgement
*behaviour was out of character
(loss of control)
R v Ward
-D, his brother and V were friends
-V tried to enter D’s house and pushed and headbutted D’s bro
-D hit with a pickaxe
-He successfully argued loss of control as he feared violence against his brother
(qualifying trigger)
R v Zebedee
-D’s 94 year old dad, who had Alzheimer’s soiled himself
-D killed him
-Fathers actions didn’t fulfill a and b under s55(4) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
(things said or done)
R v Hatter
-D was seeing V
-V began seeing another man after stopping contact with D (ghosted him)
-D broke into V’s home, and stabbed her and himself ‘accidentally’
-D didn’t lose control as a and b under s55(4) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 weren’t fulfilled
(things said or done)
R v Clinton
-D was depressed and took medication
-Wife taunted him, saying she was having an affair and he was too much of a coward to kill himself
-He killed her
-D was convicted but appealed successfully on the grounds of loss of control due to things wife said or done
(excluded matters)
R v Asmelash
-D was drunk
-He couldn’t control his actions when he killed V
-Court held this wasn’t a factor, as it wasn’t the purpose of the Act
(Circumstances of the D)
R v Sutcliffe
-Yorkshire ripper
-Charged with 20 counts of murder
-Medical advice showed he suffered with paranoid schizophrenia
-Jury didn’t accept the defence of diminished responsibility
(Evaluation of DR)
R v Venables
-10 yr killed James Bulger
-prosecution successfully undermined the principle that young people can’t be held accountable
(Evaluation of DR)
