Loss Of Control - Voluntary Manslaughter

Question 1

Defence

Answer 1

Partial defence reduces charge to manslaughter
S54 CJA 2009

Question 2

S54 1

Answer 2

S54 (1) It must be proven that D had lost self-control when doing the acts which caused V’s death.

Question 3

S54 2

Answer 3

S54 (2) The loss of control does not have to be sudden. It can build up over time. Whether D has lost control or not is a matter for the jury to decide. It has to be a total loss of control – partial loss is not sufficient. In addition, temper or anger that is ‘out of character’ is not sufficient, D must have ‘snapped’. Jewell

Question 4

S55

Answer 4

S55 - There has to be a qualifying trigger for the loss of control to come within the defence. The loss of control was attributable to:

Question 5

S55 3

Answer 5

s55(3) D’s fear of serious violence from V or another identified person. General fear is insufficient Ward.

Question 6

S55 4

Answer 6

s55(4) A thing or things done or said which –

a) constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and

b) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. These should be judged objectively. R v Hatter observed that circumstances must be extremely grave and D’s sense of being seriously wronged, justifiable.

Question 7

S55 5

Answer 7

S55 (5) - A qualifying trigger can be a combination of both.

Question 8

S55 6

Answer 8

s55(6) Where D has incited the violence, D cannot rely on the qualifying trigger of fear of violence. Dawes The 2009 Act expressly states that sexual infidelity can never be a qualifying trigger. However, Clinton…may be raised if other triggers present.

Question 9

S54 4

Answer 9

S54 (4) The defence is not available for revenge attacks. Ibrams & Gregory

Question 10

S54 3

Answer 10

S54 (3) It is necessary for D to show that ‘a person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or similar way’. This is an OBJECTIVE TEST. Other circumstances of D (such as a history of abuse) can be taken into consideration in deciding whether a ‘normal’ person might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to the D in those circumstances. Hill. Voluntary intoxication is not a matter to be considered as part of D’s circumstances. The burden of proof is on the prosecution who must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the D did not suffer from a loss of control.