Loss Of Control Flashcards

1
Q

R v Gurpinar and Kojo-smith

A

Loss of self control is the judges decision

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

R v Christian

A

A Judge considers evidence before other is brought forward to the Jury

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Quote from R v Jewell

A

“A loss of the ability to act in accordance with considered judgement or a loss of normal powers of reasoning”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What did R v Dawes and others say

A

Loss of control need not be sudden and so consideration the cumulative impact if earlier event (lots of things added up)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

When is LoC not a defence

A

When the defendant acted out if anger (R v Evans)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Revenge definition

A

An act of retribution as a result of a deliberate and considered decision to get your own back

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is a fear trigger

A

When D loses his self control due to a fear if serious violence from the victim, against either D or another identified person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

R V Ward

A

D successfully pleaded loss of control when V attacked his brother and D then killed him

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

R V Lodge

A

D successfully pleaded loss of control when V (drug dealer) had attacked D with a baseball bat and D killed him

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

2 fear triggers

A

Anticipatory force

Reactive force

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is Anticipatory force

A

Where D expected violence in the future, e.g. domestic violence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is reactive force

A

Where D reacts to force which is imminent i.e about to happen

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What are the two anger triggers S.55(4)

A

Extremely grave character

Justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

R V Doughty

A

Provocative nature of crying baby had to be put to jury, would not happen under new laws (grave character)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

R v Zebeedee 2012

A

POL: grave character doesnt include trivial matters

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What did Dawes and others say

A

A break up does not constitute circumstances of a grave character but each case needs to be considered on its facts

17
Q

How is a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged assesed

A

It must be judged objectively following R v Clinton 2012, confirmed by R v Dawes and others

18
Q

What did Clinton say about rape

A

The rape of a stranger would be insufficient to cause the defendant to have a sense of being seriously wronged personally

19
Q

R v Brehmer 2012

A

Sexual infidelity was disregarded, but jury found it was the fear of the affair being revealed that was the cause and the justifiable sense of being wronged

20
Q

What are the exclusions under S.55

A

If fear is self induced then it must be ignored

Sexual infidelity should be disregarded. However, D may still be able to establish defence e.g. where D kills her husband because he raped her sister

21
Q

R v Clinton

A

D killed wife after she brags about sleeping with 5 other men. LOC defence.

22
Q

What quote comes from the appeal of Clinton by Lord Chief Justice Judge

A

“Where sexual infidelity is integral to and forms an essential part of the context, the prohibition does not operate to exclude”

23
Q

What did Dawes and others say about sexual infidelity

A

A person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or similar way to D. Intoxication must be ignored here

24
Q

R v Meanza 2017

A

D’s mental health was not relevant to objective element. Shouldve used DR defence

25
Q

R v Remjanski

A

Mental illness could be comsidered with enough evidence

Contrasts R v Meanza

26
Q

R v Amselash

A

Voluntary intoxication was not a circumstance that could be considered. Irrelevant for purposes of loss of control