Criminal Law Manslaughter

Question 1

What may voluntary manslaughter be used as

Answer 1

As a partial defence to murder

Question 2

What is voluntary manslaughter

Answer 2

The D must have committed the AR and have MR.

However, there will be mitigating circumstances that will mean the charge of murder is reduced to voluntary m.

Question 3

The 3 partial defences to murder are:

Answer 3

1) Loss of control
2) Diminished responsibility
3) Suicide pact

Question 4

What act governs loss of control

Answer 4

s3 of the Homicide Act 1957

Question 5

What does loss of control mean

Answer 5

Where a person is provoked to lose self-control

Question 6

What does the subjective test for loss of control look at

Answer 6

Was the actual D provoked enough to lose self control?

Question 7

What does the objective test for loss of control look at

Answer 7

Would the reasonable person have been provoked enough to lose control and so as the D did?

Question 8

What was the requirement for provocation

Answer 8

Loss of control had to be ‘sudden and temporary’, established in the case of R v Duffy 1949

Question 9

R v Duffy 1949 LP

Answer 9

Loss of control had to be sudden and temporary

Question 10

DPP v Camplin 1978 LP

Answer 10

Some characteristics of the accused can be attributed to the reasonable person

Question 11

what are the 3 requirements of the defence of provocation

Answer 11

1) There must be evidence of provocation
2) The D must have been provoked to lose their self control
3) The provocation must be such as to make a reasonable man do as the D did

Question 12

What was the law of provocation replaced with

Answer 12

The defence of loss of control

Question 13

R v Ahluwalia 1992 LP

Answer 13

Provocation had to be sudden and temporary and did not allow for so called ‘slow burn’ cases where a person reacts in desperation after cumulative years of abuse. The law was changed in 2009.

Question 14

Loss of control need not to be sudden and temporary but there has to be a ….

Answer 14

qualifying trigger

Question 15

Summary of provocation

• loss of control
• fear
• things said or done
• reasonable person

Answer 15

• Was there a loss of control?
• Was it triggered by by fear of serious violence?
• Was it triggered by things said and/ or done giving the D a sense of being seriously wronged?
• Would a person of the same age and sex and with a normal degree of tolerance have reacted in the circumstances in the same way?

Question 16

Loss of control 2009 summary

• provocation
• subjective
• 2 tests
• objective

Answer 16

• Requirement of ‘sudden and temporary’ had been dropped.
• Subjective element- the actual D must have feared serious violent from the victim or another person
• It now includes a subjective and objective test
• objective test is narrower- only sex and age are taken into account

Question 17

Diminished responsibility

What act governs this

Answer 17

s2 of the Homicide Act 1957

Question 18

What is the definition of Diminished responsibility?

Answer 18

A person who kills another person is not convicted of murder is they were suffering from abnormality of the mind

Question 19

To demonstrate an abnormality of the mind the D must:

Answer 19

• Understand the nature of their conduct
• Form a rational judgement
• Exercise self-control

Question 20

The abnormality of mental functioning must provide ….

Answer 20

An explanation for the D’s acts and omissions on doing or being party to the killing

Question 21

Definition of diminished responsibility

Define ‘abnormality of mental functioning’

Answer 21

A state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that a reasonable person would identify it as abnormal

Question 22

Definition of diminished responsibility

Define ‘a recognised medical condition’

Answer 22

The jury is not bound to accept medical evidence but the act stresses the importance of expert psychiatric evidence

Question 23

Definition of diminished responsibility

Define ‘substantially impaired’

Answer 23

The jury decides on the definition of ‘substantial’

Question 24

Definition of diminished responsibility

Define ‘provides an explanation for’

Answer 24

There must be a casual link between the D’s abnormality and the killing. However, the abnormality does not need to be the sole cause. The defence will not be successful if the D’s abnormality made no difference to their behaviour

Question 25

DR and intoxication

Could intoxication be classed as involuntary?

Answer 25

Yes, as a result of addiction e.g. alcohol dependency syndrome, so this could be classed as DR due to the effect on the brain.

Question 26

DR- R v Lloyd (1966) LP

Answer 26

Substantial impairment was to be interpreted in a common sense way as more than trivial.

The abnormality of mind must be linked to a recognised medical condition but must also substantially impair the D’s responsibility for their actions.

Question 27

R v Egan 1992 LP

Answer 27

The defence of DR is lost if the jury believe that but for the voluntary consumption of alcohol the D would not have killed the victim.

Question 28

R v Tandy 1989

Answer 28

Alcoholism could be classed as a disease including abnormality of the mind, but only if it is caused by a gross impairment of judgement and the drinking was involuntary due to the addiction

Question 29

The burden of proof is on the …

Answer 29

D

Question 30

Suicide pact- what act governs this

Answer 30

s4 of the Homicide Act 1957

Question 31

What is a suicide pact

Answer 31

Where the survivor of a joint suicide pact took prt in the milling of another person in the suicide pact or was a party to the killing

Question 32

S1 of the Infanticide Act 1938 was amended by what act

Answer 32

S57 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Question 33

Criticisms of the current law on loss of control

Answer 33

The factor of sexual infidelity cannot be a qualifying trigger but can be taken into account- this produced a grey are to be clarified through further case law decisions

Question 34

Criticisms of the current law on DR

Answer 34

The burden of proof is on the D, which goes against the principle of ‘innocent till proven guilty’