Loss of Control: Limitations Flashcards
Which of the following will prevent a defendant from successfully using the loss of control defence?
A. The defendant acted out of a considered desire for revenge
B. The defendant feared serious violence
C. The defendant was provoked unexpectedly during an argument
D. The defendant killed during a sudden loss of temper
A. The defendant acted out of a considered desire for revenge
Explanation: Section 54(4) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 disqualifies the defence if the killing was part of a planned or “considered” desire for revenge.
Under section 55(6)(c) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which statement is true?
A. Sexual infidelity always qualifies as a loss of control trigger
B. Sexual infidelity must be disregarded if it is the sole trigger
C. Sexual infidelity is never considered by the jury
D. Sexual infidelity can be a qualifying trigger if the defendant acted on impulse
B. Sexual infidelity must be disregarded if it is the sole trigger
Explanation: Clinton confirmed that sexual infidelity cannot be the sole basis for a qualifying trigger, but may be relevant within a wider context.
Rohan kills his partner after discovering they were cheating and telling him he’d never see their children again. Can loss of control apply?
A. No, sexual infidelity is always excluded
B. Yes, if the threat to take the children formed part of the context
C. No, the partner’s actions were not sufficiently grave
D. Yes, because infidelity alone is always enough
B. Yes, if the threat to take the children formed part of the context
Explanation: In Clinton, the court ruled that sexual infidelity can be considered if there are other factors, like threats to remove children, forming part of the qualifying trigger.
Which of the following is excluded as a qualifying trigger under section 55(6)(b)?
A. A threat of violence from the victim
B. Being falsely accused of a serious crime
C. A taunt that was deliberately incited by the defendant
D. A personal insult made in an argument
C. A taunt that was deliberately incited by the defendant
Explanation: If the defendant incited the thing said or done to create an excuse for violence, it cannot be used as a trigger under section 55(6)(b).
Naomi provokes her partner into hitting her so she can retaliate violently. Can she use the loss of control defence?
A. Yes, because she feared violence
B. No, because she incited the violence to excuse her own
C. Yes, if she acted in a moment of fear
D. No, unless her reaction was proportionate
D. No, unless her reaction was proportionate
Explanation: While incitement usually excludes the defence, if her reaction was completely disproportionate, the jury may find she did not truly lose control in the way required by law. However, this is borderline and highly fact-dependent.
Which of the following does NOT limit the availability of the loss of control defence?
A. The defendant acted with a considered desire for revenge
B. The trigger was incited to excuse the defendant’s violence
C. The trigger was solely sexual infidelity
D. The defendant’s response involved an immediate loss of temper
D. The defendant’s response involved an immediate loss of temper
Explanation: A loss of temper alone does not disqualify the defence. The law requires a loss of self-control, but it doesn’t say it must be calm or calculated. However, acting from revenge, inciting violence, or relying solely on sexual infidelity does disqualify the defence under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
Which of the following scenarios would most likely not constitute a qualifying trigger for loss of control?
A. A parent witnessing their child being harmed
B. A partner making a cruel threat to take the children away
C. A shop assistant refusing to give a refund
D. A defendant being falsely accused of a crime
A. A parent witnessing their child being harmed
Explanation: This situation could give rise to self-defence, but if the parent uses excessive force, it might not meet the loss of control threshold, especially if there’s time for reflection. Again, highly context-sensitive.
Karan kills his neighbour after they insult him repeatedly. The insults were part of a wider dispute he intentionally escalated. Can he claim loss of control?
A. Yes, because he was provoked
B. No, because he used the insults as an excuse for violence
C. Yes, if a normal person would have lost control
D. No, because insults cannot form a qualifying trigger
C. Yes, if a normal person would have lost control
Explanation: Even if the insults were part of a longer dispute, the court will ask whether a person of normal tolerance and self-restraint might have acted similarly in all the circumstances, unless it was clear D deliberately incited the reaction.
