Loss of control Flashcards
Defence of LOC - statutory defintion
- 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
S54(7)
The effect of LOC will be to downgrade the offence from murder to voluntary manslaughter
S54(5)
Burden of proof is on the prosecution
What is a loss of control?
- 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
R v Richens
- Loss of control need not be complete
R v Ahulwalia
- A delay will not defeat LOC necessarily though will be evidence against it
- Planning will defeat LOC
Qualifying trigger
- 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
S55(4) - Tings said or done ….
- R v Clinton - This is an objective test
- However can consider D’s subjective circumstances (Law Commission)
R v Humphreys (under law of provocation)
- D taunted and threatened with rape
- This would qualify for S55(4) under the new law of LOC
R v Ibrams v Gregory (old law)
- 7 days elapsing between provocation and response was too long for LOC
S55(6)(a)
- Cannot incite the violence which allows a LOC
S556(b)
- Cannot incite circumstances of being seriously wronged
S55(6)(C)
Sexual infidelity cannot amount to a qualifying trigger (unless background issue - R v Clinton)
The reaction of ‘another person’ (S54(1)(c)
- Age
- Sex
- S54(3) - In D’s circumstances
S54(3)
- The circumstances allowed to be considered should largely be a question for the jury 9R v Clinton)
DPP v Camplin
- In comparison to ‘another person’ shoudl consider the normal man with the D’s relevant characteristics
- Ordinary man exercising restraint and control
R v Morhall
- 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
AG for Jersey v Holley
- Intoxication cannot be considered in relation to LOC
- The jury must consider whether LOC would occur despite intoxication
Acott
- For a LOC defence using a s55(4) trigger there must be something actually said or done. Circumstances at not enough
