Module 13, Section A - Fatal offences against the person (Voluntary manslaughter)

Question 1

What is diminished responsibility?

Answer 1

Diminished responsibility is when a defendant, though guilty of murder, will receive a reduced sentence due to an abnormality of mind that substantially impaired their ability to understand their actions or exercise self-control at the time of the murder.

Question 2

What is voluntary manslaughter?

Answer 2

A killing where the defendant had the intent for murder but a partial defence, such as diminished responsibility or loss of control, reduces liability.

Question 3

Where is diminished responsibility currently found, and what is the burden of proof?

Answer 3

Currently found in the Homicide Act 1957
> Burden of proof is on D to prove DR on the balance of probabilities

Question 4

What does the Homicide Act 1957 state surrounding diminished responsibility?

Answer 4

• D suffered from an abnormality of mind
• Abnormality was caused in one of three ways
• Abnormality was a substantial cause
• Abnormality substantially impaired D’s mental responsibility

Question 5

What is an ‘abnormality of mind’?

Answer 5

A state of mind so different from an ordinary human that the reasonable man would term it abnormal

Question 6

What was the legal outcome in Anthony Martin (2001)?

Answer 6

Court quashed the murder conviction and substituted it with manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
- Psychiatric evidence showed Martin had paranoid personality disorder, which substantially impaired his mental responsibility at the time of the killing.

Question 7

What was the legal outcome of R v Byrne (1960)?

Answer 7

Diminished responsibility covers all activities of the mind – the capacity to make rational judgements and to exercise willpower can be used for DR.

Question 8

What was the legal outcome of R v Seers (1984)?

Answer 8

Abnormality of the mind does not have to be connected with madness

Question 9

What are the three ‘specified causes’ from the Homicide Act 1957?

Answer 9

• Arrested development (mental deficiency)
• Induced by disease
• Induced by injury

Question 10

What was the outcome of Speake (1984) (arrested development; mental deficiency)

Answer 10

The court ruled that mental deficiency qualified as an abnormality of mind, particularly under the category of “arrested or retarded development of mind” mentioned in the Act.

Question 11

What was the outcome of Gomez (1964)?

Answer 11

The Court of Appeal accepted that a severe personality disorder could amount to an “abnormality of mind” under the diminished responsibility defence.

Question 12

What are the parameters around the ‘induced by disease’ clause in the Homicide Act 1957?

Answer 12

Disease can be a physical or mental disease; does not need to be physical damage to the brain (i.e. battered woman syndrome; Ahluwalia)

Question 13

What was the legal outcome in Ahluwalia?

Answer 13

Ahluwalia appealed the conviction on the basis of diminished responsibility.
- Psychiatric evidence was introduced, showing she suffered from depressive disorder and what would later be understood as battered woman syndrome, which substantially impaired her mental functioning at the time of the killing.

Court quashed her murder conviction, later convicted of voluntary manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

Question 14

What are the parameters around the ‘induced by injury’ clause in the Homicide Act 1957?

Answer 14

Injury is a physical blow to the head; must have affected the physical structure of the brain; short term effects are NOT injuries

Question 15

For the clause in the Homicide Act 1957 requiring the abnormality must be the substantial (most significant) cause of death, what problems can arise?

Answer 15

• Alcoholism and drug use (which was more influential?)

Question 16

What was the legal outcome in Fenton?

Answer 16

The issue of whether it was the drink or the abnormality that caused the killing should be left to the jury.

Voluntary intoxication does not automatically rule out diminished responsibility.
- But the jury must decide if the abnormality alone, or together with drink, was what substantially impaired the defendant’s mental responsibility.

Question 17

What was the legal outcome in Gittens (1984)?

Answer 17

…the court said the jurors should “ask yourselves what was the substantial cause of death”; If it was the abnormality, then the defence of DR will be established”

Question 18

In terms of alcoholism, what is its effect on diminished responsibility?

Answer 18

If the long term alcoholism has affected the physical structure of the brain, this may be an abnormality induced by injury.

Question 19

What was the legal outcome of Tandy (1989)?

Answer 19

… if it is long term alcoholism, we need to consider if the alcoholism amounts to abnormality induced by disease or injury

Question 20

What was the legal outcome of Inseal (1992)?

Answer 20

… if D cannot resist drinking (involuntary), this is an abnormality induced by disease
> (Inseal chose to drink)

Question 21

What was the legal outcome in Di Duca (1959)?

Answer 21

… court held that the effects of short term drinking on the brain were not an injury, and that alcohol had not been the substantial cause.

Question 22

Knowing that abnormality must have substantially impaired D’s mental responsibility for diminished responsibility, what was the legal outcome in Lloyd (1967)?

Answer 22

… the court said that the mind does not need to be totally destroyed, but must be more than minimal

Question 23

What is loss of control?

Answer 23

A partial defence to murder under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, where the defendant acts in a sudden or gradual loss of self-control due to a qualifying trigger.

Question 24

What is provocation?

Answer 24

An old defence under the Homicide Act 1957 that allowed a murder charge to be reduced if the defendant was provoked. It has now been replaced by the loss of control defence.

Question 25

Where is loss of control currently found in the law?

Answer 25

Currently found in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Question 26

Why was loss of control introduced?

Answer 26

LC was introduced in response to concerns about provocation; it proved problematic and was subject to much consideration; and was not always consistent. > Defence usually had a gender bias (favourable to those who killed due to losing their temper, mainly men, but not to those out of fear of serious violence, usually women); new LC is much more restrictive in application

Question 27

What does s.54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 state around loss of control?

Answer 27

A person who kills or was party to a killing may be convicted of manslaughter rather than murder where there exists; - A loss of self-control, … the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, … a person of D’s sex and age might have reacted in the same way If sufficient evidence is agreed, the jury must assume the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not

Question 28

What case established the necessity for a sudden loss of control for provocation, and how has this changed?

Answer 28

No requirement that the LC be sudden; change from the law of provocation (required LC to be sudden and temporary, established in R v Duffy (1949)

Question 29

What was one problem around the necessity for a 'sudden' loss of control?

Answer 29

This law was seen as a significant barrier to victims of domestic violence (i.e. in Thornton) i.e. Ahluwalia > Court accepted that LC could take place over a period of time (‘slow burn’); longer the delay, more likely it will negate LC

Question 30

What do Thornton and Ahluwalia show between loss of control and diminished responsibility?

Answer 30

Thornton and Ahluwalia show overlap with DR; discuss both defences in cases where factors such as ‘battered woman syndrome’ are apparent; abuse over a long period could lead to an ‘abnormality of mind’ from an ‘inherent’ cause; DR may succeed where loss of control could fail.

Question 31

What was the legal outcome of Thornton?

Answer 31

Murder conviction was quashed. In accordance with Ahluwalia, the jury should have been directed that they could take into account her mental characteristics (prolonged abuse) in terms of her loss of control.

Question 32

What does quashed mean?

Answer 32

When a conviction or sentence is overturned by an appeal court, making it legally invalid.

Question 33

What does slow burn mean?

Answer 33

A gradual build-up of emotions leading to a loss of control (under the old law on provocation), often seen in cases of prolonged abuse rather than an immediate reaction.

Question 34

What does the balance of probabilities mean?

Answer 34

The standard of proof in civil cases and some defences, meaning the claim must be more likely than not to be true.

Question 35

What is the law on loss of control for revenge?

Answer 35

- If D acts in a considered desire for revenge, they cannot rely on the defence; i.e. R v Ibrams and Gregory (1982)

Question 36

Under provocation, what could be used as evidence for it, and why was this problematic?

Answer 36

Under provocation, any act was capable of being used as evidence (problematic as this is too wide); provocative act did not have to be deliberate or aimed at the victim (Woollin, Doughty); altered in s.54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Question 37

What happened in R v Davies (1975)?

Answer 37

D was convicted of murder after killing his estranged wife. - He claimed that he had been provoked by her infidelity. Court found that the circumstances, seeing his wife with another man and learning about her new relationship, were not sufficient to constitute provocation that would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control and kill. > So although Davies claimed he lost control, the objective element of the test (what a reasonable person would do) was not satisfied.

Question 38

What are the facts and legal outcome of Doughty?

Answer 38

D was convicted of murder after killing his infant son. - He claimed that the child had been crying incessantly, which provoked him to lose self-control, yet this was due to him not feeding the child properly. - The court quashed the murder conviction and replaced it with manslaughter, highlighting the problems with the old, broad law on provocation

Question 39

What is a qualifying trigger?

Answer 39

A specific reason under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 that justifies a loss of control defence, such as fear of serious violence or a grave provocation that caused a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. > Sexual infidelity is NOT a qualifying trigger, and a person may not raise one if they incited the problem

Question 40

What does the s.54 Coroners Act require surrounding D's sex and age?

Answer 40

s.54 Coroners Act requires that a person of the D’s sex and age might have reacted in a similar way; question for the jury to decide

Question 41

What was the legal outcome of AG for Jersey v Holley (2005)?

Answer 41

Jury must consider the effect of provocation on a person of the same age and sex as D, but with ordinary powers of self-control

Question 42

What was the legal outcome of DPP v Camplin (1978)?

Answer 42

Court held that D’s ‘age and sex’ had to be considered

Question 43

What was the legal outcome of Hill (2008)?

Answer 43

The ‘normal person’ would have to be considered as having a history of sexual abuse.