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