Loss of control

Question 1

Defence of LOC - statutory defintion

Answer 1

• S54(1) CJA 2009
• Where D kills another he is not to be guilty of murder if there is;
• A loss of control
• A qualifying trigger
• ‘Another person’ would have reacted in the same way

Question 2

S54(7)

Answer 2

The effect of LOC will be to downgrade the offence from murder to voluntary manslaughter

Question 3

S54(5)

Answer 3

Burden of proof is on the prosecution

Question 4

What is a loss of control?

Answer 4

• Negative definition in the statute
• It is primarily a subjective question for the jury on the facts of the case
• S54(2) - Need not be sudden
• S54(4) no defence if D acted i considered revenge

Question 5

R v Richens

Answer 5

• Loss of control need not be complete

Question 6

R v Ahulwalia

Answer 6

• A delay will not defeat LOC necessarily though will be evidence against it
• Planning will defeat LOC

Question 7

Qualifying trigger

Answer 7

• S55(3) - Fear of serious violence (subjective)
• S55(4) - Things said or done cause (objective;
  - Circumstances of an extremely grave character
  - Caused D to have a justified sense of being seriously wronged

Question 8

S55(4) - Tings said or done ….

Answer 8

• R v Clinton - This is an objective test

- However can consider D’s subjective circumstances (Law Commission)

Question 9

R v Humphreys (under law of provocation)

Answer 9

• D taunted and threatened with rape

- This would qualify for S55(4) under the new law of LOC

Question 10

R v Ibrams v Gregory (old law)

Answer 10

• 7 days elapsing between provocation and response was too long for LOC

Question 11

S55(6)(a)

Answer 11

• Cannot incite the violence which allows a LOC

Question 12

S556(b)

Answer 12

• Cannot incite circumstances of being seriously wronged

Question 13

S55(6)(C)

Answer 13

Sexual infidelity cannot amount to a qualifying trigger (unless background issue - R v Clinton)

Question 14

The reaction of ‘another person’ (S54(1)(c)

Answer 14

• Age
• Sex
• S54(3) - In D’s circumstances

Question 15

S54(3)

Answer 15

• The circumstances allowed to be considered should largely be a question for the jury 9R v Clinton)

Question 16

DPP v Camplin

Answer 16

• In comparison to ‘another person’ shoudl consider the normal man with the D’s relevant characteristics
• Ordinary man exercising restraint and control

Question 17

R v Morhall

Answer 17

• Intoxication will not negate the defence, however it will be harder to prove as jury will have to consider whether despite the intoxication the D would have lost control
• Where the D is taunted for their addiction/intoxication then this can be taken into account in terms of a qualifying trigger and response but cannot be considered in terms of actual intoxication

Question 18

AG for Jersey v Holley

Answer 18

• Intoxication cannot be considered in relation to LOC

- The jury must consider whether LOC would occur despite intoxication

Question 19

Acott

Answer 19

• For a LOC defence using a s55(4) trigger there must be something actually said or done. Circumstances at not enough