loss of control

Question 1

What is loss of control?

Answer 1

this is a partial defence to a charge of murder

Question 2

What did the loss of control replace?

Answer 2

the former defence of provocation

Question 3

Where is the law on the loss of control set out?

Answer 3

s54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Question 4

What is the definition of loss of control?

Answer 4

Where a person kills or is a party to the killing of another, D is not to be convicted of murder if

• D’s acts/omission resulted from loss of control
• the loss of self control had a qualifying trigger
• a person’s of D’s age and sex with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint in the same circumstances might have reacted the same as D

Question 5

Under s.54(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 the loss of self control does not have to be what?

Answer 5

sudden

Question 6

While s.54(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 states that the loss of self control does not have to be sudden, how is this different to the old defence of provocation?

Answer 6

As loss of control had to be sudden

Question 7

What case is an example of where D was unable to use the defence of provocation as a loss of control had to be sudden?

Answer 7

Ahluwalia 1992

Question 8

What happened in the case of Ahluwalia?

Answer 8

D had been physically abused over many years by her husband. D set V on fire after he threatened violence the night before. COA did not allow appeal as her reaction had to be ‘sudden’ and not deliberate. COA allowed defence of DR

Question 9

D had been physically abused over many years by her husband. D set V on fire after he threatened violence the night before. COA did not allow appeal as her reaction had to be ‘sudden’ and not deliberate. COA allowed defence of DR
What case is this?

Answer 9

Ahuluwalia

Question 10

As there does now not have to be a sudden loss of self control for the defence, it is possible that D in which case may have been given the defence of loss of control?

Answer 10

Ahluwalia

Question 11

What section of the Coroners and Justice Act sets out the qualifying triggers which are permitted?

Answer 11

s.55

Question 12

What are the 2 qualifying triggers?

Answer 12

1) D’s fear of serious violence from V
2) things said or done which
- are of an extremely grave nature
- cause D to have a justifiable sense of being wronged

Question 13

What case shows that the old law of provocation did not allow a defence where D lost control through fear of violence?

Answer 13

Martin Anthony 2002

Question 14

What does not constitute as fear of violence?

Answer 14

to fear another person who is not identified. It cannot be a general fear of violence

Question 15

When can D not rely on the qualifying fear of violence?

Answer 15

when D has incited the violence

Question 16

What case emphasised the fact that if D has incited violence then D cannot rely on a fear of violence qualifying trigger?

Answer 16

Dawes 2013

Question 17

D found wife having an affair. D stabbed V. Defence of loss of control did not go to jury. COA upheld conviction as D can not rely on sexual infidelity as a qualifying trigger nor could he rely on fear of violence when he incited violence. COA also pointed out that where D has a normal capacity of self restraint and tolerance then unless the circumstances were extremely grave, any irritation will not come within loss of control.
What case is this?

Answer 17

Dawes

Question 18

What happened in the case of Dawes?

Answer 18

D found wife having an affair. D stabbed V. Defence of loss of control did not go to jury. COA upheld conviction as D can not rely on sexual infidelity as a qualifying trigger nor could he rely on fear of violence when he incited violence. COA also pointed out that where D has a normal capacity of self restraint and tolerance then unless the circumstances were extremely grave, any irritation will not come within loss of control.

Question 19

Under what section are the two points that have to be shown if D is relying on thins said or done which are:

• extremely grave character
• caused D to have a justifiable sense of being wronged

Answer 19

s55(4)

Question 20

What are the two points under things said or done?

Answer 20

• that they were of an -extremely grave character

- that they caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

Question 21

How is the defence of loss of control narrower than the old defence of provocation?

Answer 21

as the tests under ‘things said or done’ were not in the old law of provocation

Question 22

Why would many cases where D was able to use the defence of provocation would now not comes within the defence of loss of control?

Answer 22

as the defence of loss of control is narrower than the old defence of provocation such as with the two points of things said or done

Question 23

how can the change under ‘things said or done’ be seen between provocation and defence of loss of control? (cases)

Answer 23

through the cases of Doughty (1986) and Zebedee (2012) where Zebedee was not able to use the defence of loss of control

Question 24

What happened in the case of Doughty (1986)

Answer 24

D killed 19 old son as would not stop crying. COA quashed conviction as it should have been left to jury to decide if the baby’s crying was provocation.

Question 25

D killed 19 old son as would not stop crying. COA quashed conviction as it should have been left to jury to decide if the baby’s crying was provocation.
What case is this?

Answer 25

Doughty 1986

Question 26

What happened in the case of Zebedee 2012?

Answer 26

D lost control and killed his elderly father after repeatedly soiling himself. Conviction for murder upheld as in order for things done or said to be a qualifying trigger, the circumstances had to be of an extremely grave nature or D must have had a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. Neither of these conditions were present.

Question 27

D lost control and killed his elderly father after repeatedly soiling himself. Conviction for murder upheld as in order for things done or said to be a qualifying trigger, the circumstances had to be of an extremely grave nature or D must have had a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. Neither of these conditions were present.
What case is this?

Answer 27

Zebedee 2012

Question 28

When was sexual infidelity allowed as a defence?

Answer 28

under the defence of provocation

Question 29

What have the Government felt about the defence of provocation?

Answer 29

that the defence of sexual infidelity allowed violence over a common act which was not relevant to 21st century society

Question 30

What case made it clear that sexual infidelity alone cannot amount to a qualifying trigger for the defence of loss of control?

Answer 30

Clinton 2012

Question 31

What did the COA decide in the case of Clinton 2012?

Answer 31

that sexual infidelity alone cannot amount to a qualifying trigger for the loss of self control but it did not have to be completely disregarded if it was integral to and informed an essential part of the context where there were other factors which could be qualifying triggers.

Question 32

What happened in the case of Clinton 2012?

Answer 32

D was being medicated for depression when he killed his wife. The day before she taunted D about having an affair, and said he did not have the courage to commit suicide. COA quashed as defence should have gone to jury

Question 33

D was being medicated for depression when he killed his wife. The day before she taunted D about having an affair, and said he did not have the courage to commit suicide. COA quashed as defence should have gone to jury
What case is this?

Answer 33

Clinton 2012

Question 34

In what case was it decided that sexual infidelity cannot amount to a qualifying trigger>

Answer 34

Dawes 2013

Question 35

other than sexual infidelity, when else will the defence of loss of control not be allowed?

Answer 35

if D acted in a “considered desire for change”

Question 36

Which excluded matter is similar to that of provocation?

Answer 36

the considered desire for revenge

Question 37

Which old case reflects that the defence of provocation did not allow considered desire for revenge?

Answer 37

Ibrams and Gregory

Question 38

What happened in the case of Ibrams and Gregory?

Answer 38

after several incidents of threats and harassments, the two Ds made a plan to attack the person who threatened them, killing V 2 days later. No sudden loss of self control under provocation

Question 39

Which old case reflects D could have the defence of provocation if there was a sudden loss of self control even if there was an element of desire for revenge?

Answer 39

Baillie 1995

Question 40

What happened in the case of Baillie?

Answer 40

D shot a drug dealer, V after V threatened his son. Trial judge refused to allow the defence of provocation to be put to jury. COA allowed appeal as there was evidence that he suffered from a loss of self control.

Question 41

D shot a drug dealer, V after V threatened his son. Trial judge refused to allow the defence of provocation to be put to jury. COA allowed appeal as there was evidence that he suffered from a loss of self control.
What case is this?

Answer 41

Baillie

Question 42

If the case of Baillie was put to jury today, what would be the likely result?

Answer 42

Under the 2009 Act, it is difficult to tell if Baillie would come under the defence of loss of control as there is a clear element of revenge

Question 43

The 2009 Act required that whichever ‘qualifying trigger’ is relied on, it is necessary for D to show what?

Answer 43

that a persons of Ds age and sex with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint in the circumstances of D might have reacted in the same or similar way

Question 44

What case of provocation held that whichever ‘qualifying trigger’ is relied on, it is still necessary fro D to show that “a person of Ds sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint in the circumstances of D might have reacted the same or similar way?

Answer 44

Camplin

Question 45

What happened in the case of Camplin?

Answer 45

D was 15year old boy who was sexually abused by an older man who laughed at him. D hit the man with a pan. Judge directed the jury to ignore the boys age. D convicted of murder, HOL allowed appeal and substituted for manslaughter.

Question 46

D was 15year old boy who was sexually abused by an older man who laughed at him. D hit the man with a pan. Judge directed the jury to ignore the boys age. D convicted of murder, HOL allowed appeal and substituted for manslaughter.
What case is this?

Answer 46

Camplin

Question 47

Under the standard of self control, under the 2009 Act what cannot be taken into account when looking at the level of self control expected of him?

Answer 47

The fact that D may be particularly hot-tempered, e.g personal characteristics

Question 48

What case under provocation demonstrates that personal characteristics are not taken into the assessment of where D has the ability to exercise self control?

Answer 48

Jersey v Holley

Question 49

Apart from sex and age, what can the jury not consider under the standard of self control which is an objective part of the defence?

Answer 49

Ds personal circumstances which may have made him have less self control