manslaughter Flashcards

1
Q

what are the three types of homicide offences

A

murder

voluntary manslaughter

involuntary manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

definition of murder

A

“To unlawfully kill another person under the Queen’s peace, and to do so intending to kill or cause GBH.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

a result crime

A

either committed through positive action or omission

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

defence of murder

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

voluntary manslaughter

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

sentencing disparity

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

voluntary vs involuntary

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

quirks of the english language

A

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…)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

voluntary manslaughter

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

loss of self control

A

• D kills while having lost their self control as a result of fear of serious violence or a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

definition of loss of control in S54(1) Coroners and Justice Act 2009

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

from provocation to loss of control

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

what are the two elements of loss of control

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

burden of loss of control

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q
  1. D must have lost self-control
A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

what is losing self control

A

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

17
Q

Jewell 2014 - loss of self control

A

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

18
Q
  1. there must be a qualifying trigger
A

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
19
Q
  1. a person of normal tolerance and self restraint might have reacted similarly
A

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

20
Q

diminished responsibility

A

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

21
Q

difference between DR and insanity

A

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

22
Q

S52 coroners and justice act 2009

A

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

23
Q
  1. abnormality of mental functioning
A

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

24
Q
  1. arisen from a recognised medical condition
A

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
25
Q
  1. impaired D’s mental ability to
A

=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

26
Q

understanding the nature of conduct

A

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

27
Q

to form a rational judgement

A

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

28
Q

to exercise control

A

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

29
Q
  1. the abnormality must provide an explanation for the killing
A

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

30
Q

suicide pact

A

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

31
Q

fear of serious violence

A

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

32
Q

self defence? fear of serious violence?

A

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

33
Q

wronged by something said or done

A

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

34
Q

exclusions

A

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

35
Q

sexual infidelity

A

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

36
Q

summary

A

To satisfy the move from Murder to MS, both elements must be proved by the D on the balance of probabilities