Loss of control;

Question 1

s.54(1) states…

Answer 1

where the defendant kills or is party to a killing of another the D isn’t to be convicted of murder if
> D has lost self control
> loss of control had a qualifying trigger
> a normal person, the same age and sex as D, in the same circumstances with normal level of self restraint and tolerance might’ve have reacted in the same or similar way

Question 2

burden of proof s.54(2)

Answer 2

if there sufficient evidence the jury must assume the defence is satisfied unless prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that its not

Question 3

D must have lost self control
s.54(2) states…

Answer 3

the loss of self control doesn’t need to be sudden there can be a delay between qualifying trigger and killing- the longer the delay the more likely the defence will fail

Question 4

R v Jewell

Answer 4

the fact that the D was unwell, depressed, lacked sleep and unable to think straight wasn’t enough
loss of control is ‘’ a loss of the ability to act with considered judgement and normal powers of reasoning’’
> temper, anger and a response out of character is NOT enough

Question 5

qualifying trigger

Answer 5

s.55(3) - fear trigger
s.55(4) - anger trigger
s.55(5) - combination of both

Question 6

s.55(3) fear of violence

Answer 6

test for this is subjective
must show he had genuine fear of serious violence directed towards D or an identified person
doesn’t matter if fear is unreasonable
cannot be fear of violence on people in general

Question 7

R v Ward

Answer 7

D killed V who had previously attacked his brother, allowed to use the defence as he feared violence against his brother

Question 8

s.55(6)(a) states

Answer 8

where a D has incited the violence, he or she cannot rely on the defence

Question 9

R v Dawes

Answer 9

D came home to his wife with another man so stabbed him, there was no altercation. D couldn’t use the defence has he incited the violence.

Question 10

s.55(4) thing/s said or done

Answer 10

which not only constituted circumstances of extremely grave character but also caused D to have a justified sense of being seriously wronged.
not just mere circumstances

Question 11

R v Davies

Answer 11

D killed his wife after being provoked by Vs lovers
this would qualify as things said ir done

Question 12

Zebedee

Answer 12

D killed 94yr old father with Alzheimers due to him uncontrollably and repeatedly soiling himself.

Question 13

objective test

Answer 13

a justified sense of being wronged is an objective test - would a reasonable lose control

Question 14

R v Bowyer

Answer 14

D and V were having a relationship with the same woman, D did not know she was a prostitute. D went to Vs house to burgle him when V caught him and taunted him that the woman was a prostitute. D beat him and tied him up, V was found dead the next day.
held; no justifiable sense of being wronged as he was committing a crime and V was entitled to say whatever he wanted to get him to leave

Question 15

restrictions of the triggers

Answer 15

s.55(6)(a) -D incited the violence
s.55(6)(b)- D incited things to be said or done, maybe for the purpose of providing an excuse
s.55(6)(c)- anything said or done in connection with sexual infidelity

Question 16

s.55(6)(c)

Answer 16

anything said or done to do with sexual infidelity cannot be a trigger
however, can only be considered if it was an essential part of the context where other factors would’ve been qualifying triggers

Question 17

R v Clinton

Answer 17

both D and wife were suffering from depression, D lost control due to a number of reasons - wife told him about previous sexual partners, taunted him about suicide and told him she no longer wanted his children

Question 18

3. s.54(1)

Answer 18

the court will ask whether a person of Ds own age and sex, with a normal degree of self restraint and tolerance, and in the same circumstances would’ve reacted in the same or similar way

Question 19

s.54(3)

Answer 19

reference to ‘‘circumstances’’ applies to all circumstances except those that affect Ds capacity for tolerance and self restraint.
certain circumstances can be considered e.g years of abuse
short temper will not be considered

Question 20

R v Rejmanski

Answer 20

court confirmed that a mental disorder may be relevant circumstance of the D but cannot be relevant to the question of normal degree of tolerance and self restraint
> in principle a disorder such as PTSD may be a relevant circumstance, there was insufficient evidence in this case

Question 21

R v Wilcocks

Answer 21

if a personality disorder had cause the D to attempt suicide and he had been taunted by deceased about committing suicide, then the jury was entitled to take into account this as one of the circumstances in considering 3rd stage of defence

Question 22

R v Cristian

Answer 22

D fatally stabbed two Vs during an altercation over the temp of the water in the communal showers
judge ruled loss of control shouldn’t be left to the jury in this case, as Ds reaction was so extreme and so protected that no jury could believe a reasonable person would’ve reacted in the same/ similar way

Question 23

voluntary intoxication and Ds circumstance

Answer 23

R v Asmelash - court refused to allow voluntary intoxication to be considered

Question 24

exception; intoxication

Answer 24

if a sober person in Ds circumstances, with normal levels of tolerance and self restraint might’ve behaved in the same way they might still be able to use the defence even though they were intoxicated

Question 25

severe alcohol or drug problem

Answer 25

if D had this and was taunted about it so it became a qualifying trigger, this problem would form part of the circumstances to be considered