Loss of Control

Question 1

Loss of Control

Answer 1

s54(1) Coroners and Justice Act 2009
Partial defence - reduced to manslaughter if successful

Burden of proof rests with prosecution; only one component need be absent for the defence to fail - R v Clinton

Question 2

Old common law largely irrelevant; this is a new offence

Answer 2

R v Clinton

Question 3

There does not need to be complete loss of control, but defendant must be unable to restrain himself. Mere loss of anger is insufficient

Answer 3

R v Richens

Question 4

It remains open to the jury to consider the length of the delay whether there actually was a loss of control

Answer 4

Ahluwalia

Question 5

Qualifying trigger

Answer 5

• attributable to D’s fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person
• attributable to a thing done or said which constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character and which caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

Question 6

Fear of serious violence is a significant departure from old law, where anything could be provocation

Answer 6

R v Doughty (baby crying); R v Davies (watching adulterous meeting) no longer covered

Question 7

Covers situations where the jury considers D was justified in using force, but the level of force was unreasonable

Answer 7

R v Martin

Question 8

Things done or said - slow moving traffic insufficient

Answer 8

R v Acott

Question 9

Circumstances of an extremely grave nature

Answer 9

literal meaning

objectively determined by jury

Question 10

Justifiable sense of being seriously wronged is an objective question

Answer 10

Clinton.

Old cases give good examples of trigger:
R v Ahluwalia (domestic violence for years, threat to beat her the next morning)

R v Thornton (No1) (long term domestic abuse, took knife and sharpened it)

R v Humphreys (sexual abuse for years, he threatened her with rape)

R v Baille (son was threatened by drug dealer)

Question 11

Cannot use defence if it is an act of revenge

Answer 11

s54(4); R v Ibrams & Gregory

Question 12

Sexual infidelity is insufficient as a trigger on its own, but if accompanied by taunts or other related issues, it may be possible to include it within argument for qualifying trigger

Answer 12

Clinton

Question 13

Reaction of a normal person - s54(1)(c)

Answer 13

All circumstances of the defendant taken into account other than those bearing on his capacity for tolerance and self-restraint

Question 14

Taunts may be more offensive if the facts on which the taunts are based are true

Answer 14

DPP v Camplin; objective test

Question 15

Reasonable man is always sober and effect of drink and drugs is excluded

Answer 15

R v Morhall

Question 16

Alcoholism may be considered as a characteristic of the accused

Answer 16

R v Smith; s54(3) - can be taken into account if circumstances allow for it.

Question 17

Old defence of provocation not available to attempted murder; likely to remain the same for loss of control

Answer 17

R v Campbell