Manslaughter Flashcards
Manslaughter - charge
A person cannot be charged with manslaughter. It starts with murder, and then reduces to a manslaughter charge if there are suitable defences.
Types of manslaughter
Voluntary
Involuntary
Voluntary manslaughter
- diminished responsibility
- loss of control
Involuntary manslaughter
- gross negligence
- unlawful act
Types of defences
Capacity and necessity
Defence - capacity
- insanity
- automatism
- intoxication
Defence - necessity
- self defence
- duress
Voluntary manslaughter - loss of control
Part of the Coroners and Justice Act (2009), s. 54. This is a partial defence, d would not be fully acquitted.
There is a test for loss of control:
- d must have lost self control
- there must be a qualifying trigger
- a person of the same sex and age would have reacted the same as d
Sufficient arguments for ‘loss of control’
- d lost their ability to maintain their action in accordance with considered judgement
- d lost normal powers of reasoning
- d’s behaviour was atypical/out of character/wouldn’t have acted that way (snapped)
Insufficient arguments for ‘loss of control’
Feeling:
- unwell
- sleeping badly
- tired
- depressed
- ‘unable to think straight’
And the d being subjected to sexual infedelity or feeling the need to commit revenge.
Sufficient arguments for loss of control - cases
Ahluwalia - loss of control does not need to be sudden/in the moment
Gurpinar - d ‘lost normal powers of reasoning’
Insufficient arguments for loss of control - case
Jewell - d claimed ‘I can’t think straight’, insufficient evidence
Loss of control - a qualified trigger
Needed either:
1) d’s fear of serious violence against themselves or another, in the moment.
2) things said/done to d which were ‘extremely grave in character’ and/or things were said/done which gave a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
‘Fear of serious violence’
This has been interprented as d fearing violence against themselves or against another identifiable person.
‘Fear of serious violence’ - case
Dawes - d had started the fight and had the capacity for self-restraint and tolerance, therefore couldn’t use this defence.
‘Things said or done’
S.55(4) of the Coroners and Justice Act state that there must be 2 points if d is relying on things said/done as a qualifying trigger:
1) things said/done were of extremely grave character
2) it caused d to have a justifiable sense of being wronged.
Things said/done must amount to circumstances for the defence to be avaliable compared to the defence of provocation. It is much harder to prove. The jury will have to come to a decision to decide whether its a qualifying trigger.
Sexual infedelity and revenge - case
Clinton - under s.55(6), sexual infedelity cannot be used as a defence for loss of control. However, d was depressed and on medication + v taunted and insulted him, ‘things said/done’ may be used for d’s defence here.
The standard of self-control
S.54(1)(c) states that whichever ‘qualifying trigger’ is relied on, it id 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/ a similar way to d’. This is an objective test for the jury to consider.
Voluntary intoxication
This is not a matter to be considered unless d suffers from alchohol dependancy syndrome.
Voluntary Manslaughter - Diminished responsability
Under s.2 of the Homicide act (1957) and ammended by s.52 of the Coroners and Justice Act (2009); d is ‘not to be convicted of murder if d was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning’.
The stages of diminished responsability
1) d must suffer from an abnormailty of mental functioning
2) from a recognised medical condition
3) the condition must substaintally impair d’s ability
4) the condition must provide an explanation for d’s conduct in doing the killing
Suffering from an abnormailty of mental functioning
This is said to be ‘a state of mind so differenbt from that of ordinary human beings’.
Arises from a recognised medical condition
Including:
- Psychotic disorder/ sexual psychopath
- Post natal depression
- Pre-menstrual
- BWS
- Reactive depression
- Alchohol dependancy syndrome
The WHO international classification of diseases can be checked to confirm a condition but thge jury must be satisfied (a specialist can be called in to double check).
Arises from a medical condition - cases
Byrne - psychotic disorder/sexual psychopath
Reynolds - post-natal depression
English - pre-mentrual
Ahluwalia - BWS
Hobson - BWS
Dietschmann - reactice depression
Stewart - alchohol dependancy syndrome
To substaintally impair d’s ability
To:
a) understand his conduct
b) form a rational judgement
c) excersise self-control
The imparment does not need to be total but must be more than trivial.
To substaintally impair d’s ability - case
Lloyd - the impairment does not need to be total, but must be more than trivial.
The condition must provide an explanation for d’s conduct
The abnormality may be the reason for killing, but does not need to be the sole reason. It should be a significant contributing factor, but does not need to be the only cause.
The condition must provide an explanation for d’s conduct - case
Lloyd - it should be a significant contributing factor, but does not need to be the only cause.
Voluntary intoxication - cases
Di Duca - intoxication alone is not an abnormality as the effect on the brain is transient
Dietschmann - the fact that d was drinking will not prevent this defence, it simly begs the question: ‘despite the drink, did his MA substaintally impair his mental responsability for his actions?’
Wood - do not need to show d was brain damaged or that drinking was voluntary
Stewart - d must have an abnormality caused by alchohol dependancy, and d was substaintally impaired for DR to be allowed.
