loss of control Flashcards
what three part test do we use to see if a person isn’t convicted of murder
[] are the extra bits from S54 we must know
- loss of control [wasn’t sudden but must be total and cannot be considered desire for revenge]
- had a qualifying trigger [Something said or done or extremely grave character (not the person) causing the defendant to feel a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged]
- A person of the defendant sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint and in the circumstances might have reacted in the same or similar way to the defendant [certain circumstances are relevant and can be considered, so being abused would be relevant however, the fact that the defendant has a short temper could not be taken into consideration as it relates only to the defendants capacity for tolerance and self restraint]
R v Baille
- defendant than his sons drug dealer threaten the son by saying he would get a slap if he tried getting drugs from another dealer
- defendant took a razor and shotgun and drove to the dealers house, inflicted serious injuries using a razor and use the shotgun to kill him
NOT LOSS OF CONTROL IT WAS CLEARLY REVENGE
R v Jewell
- Defendant shot the victim at point Blank range and one arrested his car contain weapons, ammunition and survival kit
- he told the jury he couldn’t think straight and was not in control of his actions (key legal point)
what are the triggers we need to know
S55- fear trigger (Fear of serious violence from the victim against the defendant, however theo would be disregarded if the defendant incited violence as an excuse to use violence)
S55- anger trigger (something said or done of extremely grave character causing the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged)
what does S55 (6) state about determining whether a loss or self control had a qualifying trigger
- defendants fear of serious violence is to be disregarded if the defendant incited violence
- A sense of being seriously wronged by thing done or said it’s not justifiable if the defendant incited the thing to be done or said
- Sexual infidelity, so adultery, is to be disregarded however, sexual infidelity can be considered alongside other significant factors
R v Dawes (trigger- fear of serious violence)
-Defendant found wife with another man, D stabbed and killed him, the defendant cannot rely on theo violence when the defendant has excited that
FEAR TRIGGER
R v Zebedee (Justifiable sense of being seriously wrong according to defendant)
- Defendant lost control of a 94-year-old father with Alzheimer’s who is incontinent repeatedly soiled himself so, the defendant killed his father
- Jury said that there was no justifiable trigger
ANGER TRIGGER
R v Clinton
- defendants wife taunted him the details of a sexual exploits, defendant had depression and the wife said he didn’t have the courage to kill himself and she was going to leave him and didn’t want the kids to live with him
- Defendant killed wife, her comments would be considered as a qualifying trigger
-Sexual infidelity was not the only trigger so it is considered alongside other significant factors
DPP v Camplin (person’s sex and age taken into consideration part of test)
-15-year-old boy killed a middle-aged man by hitting him over the head with a chapati pan, defendant stated he had a loss of control (was provocation back then) as the deceased had with him and then off to him and to the point in which he lost control and hit him
what do we learn from R v Mohammed and R v Holley
R v M- Violent bad temper is not a relevant characteristic
R v H-Alcohol and depression are not relevant characteristics
R v Aluwalia
- had an arranged marriage and had 10 years of violence, rape and sexual abuse
- Husband was very controlling and she was treated like a slave so she set fire to his bed clothes while he slept but had no intention to kill (he died)
- Courtside women who are victims of abuse may have more of a ‘ slow burn’ reaction rather than an immediate
law
s54 of the coroners and justice act 2009
