manslaughter Flashcards
what are the three types of homicide offences
murder
voluntary manslaughter
involuntary manslaughter
definition of murder
“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
defence of murder
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
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
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
voluntary vs involuntary
Voluntary MS
- D satisfies the AR and MR of murder – but can apply a partial defense 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 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
definition of loss of control 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
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
what are the two elements of loss of control
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 of loss of control
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 - loss of self control
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;
- A fear of serious violence
- A sense of being seriously wronged by things said or done
- a person of normal tolerance and self restraint might have reacted similarly
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
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
D’s recognized medical condition led to an abnormality of mind which substantially impaired their capacity and caused them to kill
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 coroners 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
- abnormality 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 recognised 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
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 to
=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 decision
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
D kills V in pursuance of an agreement that they will both die together
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
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 defense, 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 defense
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
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
summary
To satisfy the move from Murder to MS, both elements must be proved by the D on the balance of probabilities
