Loss of Control [Murder Partial Defences]

Question 1

Under which section and Act of Parliament is the defence defined under?

Answer 1

s54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Question 2

What is the FIRST element?

Answer 2

There is no legal definition for a loss of control but it must be more than D getting angry or losing their temper and they must lose all ability to control themselves (Jewell). The LOC does not need to be sudden (Dawes), but the more time that has passed, the less likely D will be able to use the defence. Also, if the killing was in revenge, then D cannot raise LOC.

Question 3

What is the SECOND element?

Answer 3

The LOC must have been caused by a QT and s55 defines the two different types of this. The first is the fear trigger, under s55(3), when D fears serious violence from the victim to D or another identifiable person (Ward).

The second is the anger trigger, under s55(4), when things said or done by the victim cause the LOC (Zebedee). The things said or done must have been of extremely grave character, under s55(4)(a), and must have caused a justifiable sense of being wronged, under s55(4)(b). Sexual infidelity cannot be classed as a QT (Clinton).

Or, under s55(5), the QT can be a combination of both triggers.

Question 4

What is the THIRD element?

Answer 4

The subjective and objective tests must be applied. This, which looks at someone of the same age, sex and circumstances, and of normal tolerance and self-restraint, as the D would have acted in the same way, which is a matter for the jury to decide. A short temper in D is not to be considered (Gassman)

Question 5

What about intoxication?

Answer 5

If D is voluntarily intoxicated, then intoxication cannot be a part of their defence (Asmelash).
If a reasonable person with normal tolerance would have acted the same way as D, then they can still use the defence.
If D acts because they are taunted about drug/alcohol abuse, this could be enough for a QT.