manslaughter Flashcards
Homicide offences
Homicide offences include three types of offences;
- Murder
- Voluntary Manslaughter
- Involuntary Manslaughter
murder recap
Common law offence, defined by Lord Coke in the 17th Century
“To unlawfully kill another person under the Queen’s peace, and to do so intending to kill or cause GBH.”
A result crime – either committed through positive action or omission
Satisfied when the conduct cause the death of the V
Must have been in QP, unlawful killing, human being, no lawful defence
Murder is the intentional act to end a human being’s life – there can be no defence applicable and there must be sufficient intent to have brought about the end of life or to cause serious harm
Remember, this is the most serious of all the homicide/fatal offences and the sentencing and view of the courts reflects this
voluntary manslaughter
Similarly to Murder, V MS is a common law offence with the AR the same as murder;
Unlawful conduct which causes the death of a person
However, the scope of this is far wider – covering all fatal offences which are not murder
Where the definition and existence of murder is deliberately narrow to allow the specific nature of the offence to only be satisfied by very particular conduct – the offence of Manslaughter does not remain the same
Sentencing disparity
- Where the judge is restricted to a mandatory life sentence (with a tariff amount) for Murder, this differs for MS
- With MS, the judge has discretion of up to a maximum of life imprisonment
Involuntary vs voluntary
Voluntary MS: D satisfies the AR and MR of murder – but can apply a partial defence which then reduces their liability
Involuntary MS: D does not satisfy the MR for murder, but does for MS
Effectively, V MS involves a partial defence to murder, where Invol MS is actually a separate (but still Homicide) offence
Quirks of the English legal language
The use of the terms ‘involuntary’ and ‘voluntary’ are merely quirks of the language – the distinction between the two areas has nothing to do with the voluntariness of D’s conduct
All these offences require voluntary conduct (confusingly…)
Voluntary manslaughter
This can only arise when the D has satisfied the AR and MR of Murder
Once this is established, and once we’ve established that D has no complete defence, we move to the idea of a partial defence – therefore reducing to Vol MS
Loss of self control
D kills while having lost their self control as a result of fear of serious violence or a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
Diminished responsibility
D’s recognized medical condition led to an abnormality of mind which substantially impaired their capacity and caused them to kill
Suicide pact
D kills V in pursuance of an agreement that they will both die together
Note
These defences are only applicable to murder and should not be applied to any other crime
Effectively – they are ways in which the D can avoid the mandatory life sentence
Loss of self control
Defined in S54(1) Coroners and Justice Act 2009:
Where a person kills, or is a party to the killing of another, D is not to be convicted of murder if…
(a) D’s acts or omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D’s loss of self control
(b) The loss of self control resulted from a qualifying trigger
(c) A person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circs of D, might have reacted in the same or similar way to D
So what is the point here
- Common areas where this applies is D kills V upon seeing the V abusing D’s child, or where D reacts to personal abuse or bullying by killing
From Provocation to Loss of Control
LoC represents a statutory codification of the previous defence of provocation – a defence which has been plagued with issues of unfair treatment and uncertainty
Statute has helped develop this defence to something significantly more legally useful
3 elements
1) D’s role in the killing must have resulted from a loss of self control
2) D’s loss of self control must have been caused from a qualifying trigger:
- A fear of serious violence from V against D or another
- A thing said or done which constituted circumstances of an extremely grave nature, and caused D to have a justifiable sense of being wronged
Burden
The legal burden within this case is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that one or more elements of these elements is absent
if the prosecution are unable to disprove the defence, the D will be liable for manslaughter and not for murder
- D must have lost self control
- The D’s conduct, which caused the death must have resulted from a lack of self control
- This is subjective and asks whether D lost control, it is irrelevant whether a reasonable person would have done
what is losing self control
- Establishing what is meant by a loss of self-control has not been well defined
- The court adopted the terminology of “loss of ability to act in accordance with considered judgement or a loss of normal powers of reasoning.”
- However, a long delay may imply that the trigger did not cause a loss of self- control
Jewell [2014]
- D killed their workmate, V. There were perceived intimidation by V and D said that he was unable to sleep in the days before the murder and that he was ‘shutting down’
- He claimed the death was done in a ‘dream like’ state
- Charged with murder, and that there was planning which failed the loss of self control
- There must be a qualifying trigger
The loss of self-control must have been caused by a qualifying trigger either;
1) A fear of serious violence
2) A sense of being seriously wronged by things said or done
Fear of serious violence
- They must be in dear of serious violence against themselves or another identified person
- This is a subjective requirement – D must react to a genuine fear of serious violence but it does not need to based on a true assessment of the facts – does not need to be reasonable
Self defence? Fear of serious violence?
- As well as helping with the remnants of the previous provocation defence, this helps remove gender bias in the form of reactions
- As well as this, it helps those whose conduct falls short of the requirements laid out in self defence
Wronged by something said or done
- The second trigger is when D loses self control as a result of justifiable sense of being seriously wronged by something said or done which were of an extremely grave character
- There must be specific events for these
- This is a split objective/subjective test – subjective in that D must personally feel wronged and objective that the feeling must be objectively justifiable and the situation should be objectively grave
exclusions
- It cannot be triggered by trivial events such as a baby crying or a badly cooked steak
- Neither can it be caused by an objectional stance the D may have
- Or when the D incited the violence in some way
- Finally, the use of sexual infidelity as a trigger has become problematic
Sexual infidelity
- Established in Clinton [2012] – it is not sufficient for there to be ‘something said or done’ does not apply in cases of sexual infidelity
- However, if there is something else which is the key reason with infidelity as a ‘side’ issue – then that is applicable
- A person of normal tolerance and self-restraint
- The reaction of the D must have been ‘objectively’ understandable in that a person of D’s age and sex, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circs, D might have reacted in the same or similar way might have reacted similarity
- it is not dependent on D having a good reason, it must be shown that anybody would have reacted within the same way
- We aren’t explaining D’s rationale, but simply saying we can understand D’s conduct…there but for the grace of God…
- The use of age and sex allows us to identify what the person of the same age and sex would
Diminished responsibility
- Another partial defence, reducing D’s liability from murder to Vol MS
- For DR, D is claiming a partial excuse on the basis that they should not be held to the standard of a ‘normal’ person because of their medical condition
Difference between DR and insanity
- Insanity looks for a defect of reason which completely undermines their ability to understand the nature or quality of their acts
- With DR – the medical condition causes an abnormality of mind which substantially impairs his liabilities
S52 coronors and justice act 2009
- Defined broadly to mean “D’s abnormality of mind substantially impaired their mental responsibility”
A) D must demonstrate an abnormality of mental functioning
B) The abnormality must arise from a recognized medical condition
C) Abnormality must substantially impaired D’s ability to understand the nature of conduct, form a rational judgement, exercise self control
D) The abnormality must provide an explanation for the killing
- Abnormaility of mental functioning
- A somewhat vague definition and relies on a link between medical conditions and some impact on their mind
- The use of mental functioning rather than abnormality of mind leads to the medical/psych definitions – there must be some form of medical evidence
- Arisen from a recognized medical condition
- The courts are guided from WHO and the DSM 5 regarding what constitutes a medical condition
- Both psychiatric and physical conditions are able to satisfy this element
Included - Schizophrenia, depression, personality disorders etc
Not included - Mercy killers, abused people who kill, developmental immaturity
- While developmental immaturity may be associated with a recognized condition such as autism – on itself it will not be applicable
- Impaired D’s mental ability
- There are three ways in which D’s medical functioning have substantially impaired them to understand the nature of their conduct, form a rational judgement and exercise control
Understanding the nature of conduct
- D medical condition must have substantially impaired their ability to understand their own conduct
- Aka, a child w/mental illness who plays violent games and then kills believing the victim will regenerate – they understand the physical cost, but not the cost to the victim
To form a rational judgement
- Where the abnormality substantially impairs the ability to form a rational judgment – such as mercy killing or an abused person who kills their abuser
- The pressure of the circumstances may impair the ability of the D to make an appropriate decisions
To exercise control
- If D is incapable of living up to ‘normal self restraint’ and satisfies the rest of the requirements, the defence should be one of DR
- The abnormality must provide an explanation for the killing
- There must be a causal link between the abnormality and the killing
- It is establishing that the abnormality of mental functioning and/or medical condition combined to affect their conduct and to cause them to kill
- Really difficult to prove, and relies on the defendant to prove it
- The difficulty comes as the D must prove the link as it was within their mind at the time
- The cause may be a substantial cause, and not a sole cause
Suicide pact
- S4 homicide act 1957
Elements
a) D must have agreed with V that they will die together
b) D must intend, at the point of killing V, to die herself in line with the agreement
To satisfy the move from Murder to MS, both elements must be proved by the D on the balance of probabilities
