Murder and manslaughter Flashcards
Voluntary manslaughter
- Committed AR of murder.
- Committed MR of murder.
- Can rely on one of the special defences to murder:
o Loss of control.
o Diminished responsibility.
Murder
Actus Reus
* unlawful
* killing
* human being
* king’s peace
Mens Rea
* malice aforethought
Intention and murder
- direct intention to kill
intention bring about another person’s death i.e. Mark stands in front of Sam and shoots her in the head with a gun - direct intention to cause GBH
intention to cause serious injury but not kill i.e. Sam punches Mark in the face numerous times and Mark dies from his injuries - oblique intention to kill
D does not intend to kill but it was a virtual certainty as a result of D’s conduct and D appreciate this certainty - oblique intention to cause GBH
D does not possess intention to cause serious injury but it is a virtual certainty as a result of D’s conduct
i.e. Sam throws a number of large rocks from her bedroom window at Mark, who is standing outside on the ground-Sam intends to throw the rocks at Mark’s head but does not wish to cause Mark serious injury
Defences to murder
- Diminished responsibility
- Loss of control
Diminished responsibility
- special defence to murder (only murder)
- partial defence = turns murder conviction into one of voluntary manslaughter
- burden = defence to prove on the balance of probabilities
Requirements for diminished responsibility
if D was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which-
o (a) arose from a recognised medical condition,
o (b) substantially impaired D’s ability to do one or more of the things mentioned in subsection (1A), and
o (c) provides an explanation for D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.
Arising from medical condition
* not enough to be suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning an have a recognised medical condition - abnormality must be caused by recognised medical condition
* e.g. Alcohol Dependency Syndrome, battered spouse syndrome, depression, psychopathic personality disorder
Substantial impairment of D’s ability:
* ‘substantial’ should be given its ordinary meaning - no need to direct jury on the meaning - if further guidance was necessary judge should explain substantial means something greater than ‘more than merely trivial’
Loss of control
- partial defence
- burden of proof with prosecution and only one component must be proved
- judge decides if the defence is put to the jury
- reduction of conviction from murder to voluntary manslaughter
*fear or anger trigger
Requirements to loss of control
- D must have lost self-control.
- Due to the fear and/or anger qualifying trigger.
- A normal person might have acted in a way similar to D.
Loss of control considerations
- Look at literal meaning- whether D actually lost self-control is a question for the jury, taking account of all the evidence.
- A loss of control is understood to amount to more than irritation or even serious anger, it requires D has lost their ability to think clearly.
- R v Richens- need not be a complete loss of control so D do not know what they are doing, but they must be unable to restrain themselves.
- Mere loss of temper is not enough.
- Need not be sudden-consider length of delay between provocation and killing- the longer the delay, the less likely D has lost self-control.
- Defence will be lost if D was acting out of a ‘considered desire for revenge.’
Loss of control (fear trigger)
- D was in fear of serious violence being used against themselves or another identified person, by the victim.
- Covers situations where a jury might conclude D was justified in using defensive force, but the level of force used was unreasonable, preventing the use of self-defence.
- D cannot rely on the fear trigger if D incited it as an excuse to use violence.
- Subjective test, focused on:
o Whether D actually feared the use of violence.
o Whether what they feared was serious violence.
Loss of control (anger trigger)
- ‘This subsection applies if D’s loss of self-control was attributable to a thing or things done or said (or both), which:
o Constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and
o Caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. - Three parts:
o Things said and/or done.
o That constitute circumstances of an extremely grave nature.
o That caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. - D cannot rely on the anger trigger if:
o D incited it as an excuse to use violence, or
o The thing said/done constituted sexual infidelity. - Something must be said or done- circumstances on their own are not enough.
Normal person test
- ‘A person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D might have reacted in the same or a similar way to D.’
- Jury cannot take into account any characteristics or circumstances that would affect normal tolerance and the ability to exercise restraint. (excludes bad temper, intoxication, extreme sensitivity, personality disorder, PTSD)
Limitations on loss of control
- Desire for revenge
- as an excuse to use violence
- if the thing said/done constituted sexual infidelity
- if D is charged with attempted murder
Intoxication & murder/voluntary manslaughter
- As a way to negate the mens rea for murder.
o D can use evidence of intoxication to show they did not form the necessary mens rea for murder.
o Prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that D has committed AR and MR, if D didn’t have MR, D can be acquitted. - Influencing factor on the special defences of loss of control and diminishing responsibility.
o If D is intoxicated, special defences can still be potentially argued- intoxication can mean with drugs or alcohol.
Intoxication and loss of control
Intoxication is ignored unless there is a connection between things said/done making the qualifying trigger
Essentially, if a sober reasonable person would have reacted the same way as D then the intoxication is put to one side
