Defence Required for voluntary manslaughter Flashcards
Which act is loss of control related to?
Coroners & Justice Act 2009
What are s.54 of C&JA’s main points - the requirements
A loss of self control
Caused by a qualifying trigger
Objective element - a person of D’s age and sex would act differently/same.
Loss of self control - cases to define what it means and examples
s.54(2) - does not need to be a sudden loss of control, though partial loss of control is not enough.
R v Martin - stabbed someone after argument - already had anger issues - guilty of murder - not enough.
R v Jewell - D was intimidated by V, so went to his house and shot him. Guilty of murder - clearly out of control - angry does not mean out of control always.
Qualifying trigger - sections that define it
s.55(3): D has lost control due to D’s serious fear of violence from the V against D or another person
s.55(4): D’s loss of control is due to something said or done which:
A) constitutes circumstances of an extremely grave character
B) Caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
s.55(5): Or a combination of both of the above
Limitations of qualifying triggers
s.55(6)(c): Sexual Infidelity is to be disregarded:
R v Clinton 2012
Facts: D killed his wife after she cheated on him with 5 men, taunted him about the cheating in explicit detail, made fun of his depression and suicide attempts, and said she no longer wanted to see their children. Outcome: Ultimately was reduced to manslaughter on the basis of loss of control - was not just sexual infidelity, was many other factors too. s.55(6)(b): If D incites a reaction from V, D cannot then rely on that reaction as a reason why he lost self-control: R v Dawes 2013 Facts: D found his estranged wife asleep on the sofa with another man. He attacked the man with a bottle, and when the man retaliated he stabbed him to death. D attempted to claim loss of control due to fear of serious violence when V retaliated against them Outcome: Was guilty of murder as the defence could not apply. D had incited (encouraged) V's violence and therefore could not rely on it as a defence
Objective element - sections, cases
s.54(1)(c): This states that the jury must decide if a person of D’s sex and age and in D’s circumstances would react in the same way.
R v Wilcocks - If D has a mental illness or disorder that makes them abnormally angry, they do not have a normal degree of restraint and this should not be looked at it the circumstance.
However, if D’s mental illness causes D to attempt suicide, and V taunts D about this suicide, causing the loss of self control, then the mental illness may be taken into account. This is because here it has affected the gravity (seriousness) of the trigger for D, rather than affecting D’s level of tolerance and self-restraint
What acts relate to the defence of diminished responsibility?
Homocide Act 1957 amended by Coroners & Justice Act 2009
Main points of Homicide Act s.2 - the requirements
AOMF - Abnormality of Mental Function
Caused By a Recognized Medical Condition
Substantially Impairs Defendants Ability
Provides an Explanation for Defendants Actions
Abnormality of Mental Functioning - case example
R v Byrne - A state of mind ‘so different from that of the normal human being that they would find it abnormal’
Reduced to manslaughter due to uncontrollable impulses.
Caused by a Recognized Medical Condition - case examples
R v Dowds - Must show that the medical condition caused the abnormality - does not include voluntary intoxication.
Substantially impairs Defendant - case example
R v Golds - jury can decide if the impairment is ‘substantial’ enough to lead D to kill.
Judge can advise them that the impairment must be large and impairment cannot be minimal.
And this provides an explanation for D’s killing
The Abnormality of Mental Functioning must explain why the D killed.
This means there must be a casual link between D’s abnormality of mental functioning and killing.
It does not need to be the sole cause or even the most important cause, but it must be more than a trivial factor.
The defense should not succeed where the medical condition made no difference to their behavior (e.g. they would have killed anyway).
