Loss of Control: Voluntary Manslaughter Flashcards
Define voluntary manslaughter
Offences in which the circumstances amount to murder, only the partial defence relevant reduces the charge to manslaughter
Define loss of control
Partial defence to murder (as the defendant isn’t acquitted of all their charges, but the current offence is reduced to manslaughter if the requirements are satisfied)
What Act deals with loss of control?
s.54 of the Coroners & Justice Act 2009
Outline the first requirement for loss of control + relevant case law
The defendant lost self - control, meaning they lost their ability to maintain their actions in accordance with considered judgement. For example,
They lost their normal powers of reasoning. Their behavior was atypical & out of character
Normally they wouldn’t have reacted in this way
If the evidence suggests that the defendant conducted a sustained & calculated attack, it’s unlikely that the defendant can use this as a defence, e.g R v Ibrahim’s & Gregory [1981] under s54 (4)
R v Gurpinar [2015], R v Jewell [2014], R v Dawes [2013]
Outline the second requirement for loss of control + relevant case law
There must be a qualifying trigger that prompted the defendant into losing self - control under s.55 of the CJA 2009
It can be things done or said that either amount to fear of serious violence, an extremely provocative act or a combination of both
s55 (6) (a) states that fear of serious violence fails as a defence if the defendant has incited a thing done or said for the purpose of providing an excuse to use violence.
This must lead the defendant into experiencing extremely grave character & apprehending a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged, e.g R v Zebedee [2012]
s55 (6) (c) states that sexual infidelity is not a thing done or said as long as something said or done is present, e.g R v Clinton [2012]
Outline the third requirement for loss of control + relevant case law
Would a reasonable person with a normal degree of tolerance & self - restraint acted in the same way the defendant did?
- A person of the defendant’s same sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self - restraint, and in the same circumstances of the defendant might have reacted in the same or a similar way is objective to the jury
- Lord Diplock argues that the court could not expect ‘an old head on young shoulders’ and that different degrees of tolerance and restraint are expected of men and women and also of different ages
R v Doughty [1986]