Paper 1: voluntary manslaughter

Question 1

What is the charge?

Answer 1

Murder, if at trial one of two special defences is successfully pleases the conviction will be reduced to voluntary manslaughter

Question 2

Two special/partial defences?

Answer 2

Loss of control, diminished responsibility

Question 3

What has the old law provocation been replaced by?

Answer 3

Loss of control under Corners and Justice Act 2009

Question 4

What does s.54(1) state?

Answer 4

Where D kills or is party to the killing of another, D is not to be convicted of murder if:

Question 5

s.54(1)(a)

Answer 5

D’s acts or omissions resulted from D’s loss of self-control

Question 6

s.54(1)(b)

Answer 6

The loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger

Question 7

s.54(1)(c)

Answer 7

A person of D’s sec and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint, and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or similar way to D

Question 8

Jewell (2014)

Answer 8

Facts: D drove to V’s house to pick him up for work, D turned up and shot him twice. Convicted of murder, appealed he lost self control
Held: The court said that ‘this was a planned execution and was best described as overwhelming’; the defence of loss of control could not be raised

Question 9

s.54(2)

Answer 9

States that the loss of self-control doesn’t have to be sudden. Therefore, there may be a time delay between the qualifying trigger and the reaction of the defendant in killing the victim, must remain out of control

Question 10

S.54(4)

Answer 10

Excludes the defence where killing is motivated by a considered desire for revenge

Question 11

Dawes (2013)

Answer 11

Facts: D came home to find V asleep with his wife, D flew into a jealous rage, grabbed a kitchen knife and stabbed V in the neck killing him
Held: There was a loss of control, it does not matter whether the loss was sudden or not.
Different individuals in different situations do not react identically, nor respond immediately

Question 12

What does loss of self-control as a qualifying trigger come under?

Answer 12

s.55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Question 13

What is the fear trigger?

Answer 13

D’s loss of self-control was attributable to D’s fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person

Question 14

What is the anger trigger?

Answer 14

A thing said or done or both which constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character and caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

Question 15

3 restrictions on qualifying triggers

Answer 15

• Revenge
• Incitement- D’s fear of serious violence cannot be because D deliberately incited the violence from V, which then made D kill V
• Sexual infidelity

Question 16

Ward (2012)

Answer 16

Facts: D and D’s brother were at a house party. V attacked D’s brother and as a result, D killed V
Held: D did not personally fear violence from V; but D feared that V would use serious violence on his brother (another identified person)

Question 17

Dawes (2013)

Answer 17

Facts: D came home to find V asleep with his wife, D flew into a jealous rage, grabbed a kitchen knife and stabbed V in the neck killing him
Held: Trigger will not be disqualified unless D’s actions were intended to provide him with the excuse or opportunity to use violence

Question 18

Hatter (2013)

Answer 18

Held: The courts stressed the importance of whether the circumstances are extremely grave and whether D had a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged, judged objectively

Question 19

Clinton (2012)

Answer 19

Facts: D and V were going through a divorce, V told D she was having an affair, she laughed and taunted him about a suicide website and told him she no longer wanted the children
Held: D lost control and killed her, there is not a total exclusion on sexual infidelity if there are other things said and done which constituted to the defendant’s loss of self-control

Question 20

Dawes (2013)

Answer 20

Facts: D came home to find V asleep with his wife, D flew into a jealous rage, grabbed a kitchen knife and stabbed V in the neck killing him
Held: The court agreed that ‘cumulative impacts of earlier events’ can be taken into consideration

Question 21

Mohammed (2005)

Answer 21

Facts: D was a strict Muslim with a father with a bad reputation for being violent and bad tempered, D stabbed V to death
Held: That D’s bad temper was irrelevant and he was guilty of murder

Question 22

Asmelash (2013)

Answer 22

Facts: D and V were flatmates who often used to drink together,. D stabbed V in an argument killing him
Held: on appeal, the court stated that drunkenness was irrelevant to the ‘circumstance’ at the time

Question 23

What would you consider when seeing if the defence will succeed?

Answer 23

• Is there sufficient evidence
• Did D actually lose self-control
• Was there a delay
• Was there a qualifying trigger
• Did D incite V
• Was it the result of sexual infidelity
• Did D act out of revenge
• Was the objective test met

Question 24

What did diminished responsibility come under?

Answer 24

This is covered by the Homicide Act 1957 as amended by s.52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Question 25

s.52(1)

Answer 25

A person who kills or is party to a killing is not to be convicted of murder if the defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which:

Question 26

s.52(1)(a)

Answer 26

Arose from a recognised medical condition

Question 27

s.52(1)(b)

Answer 27

Substantially impaired the defendants ability to do one of the following:

Question 28

s.52(1A)(a)

Answer 28

Understand the nature of his conduct

Question 29

s.52(1A)(b)

Answer 29

Form a rational judgement

Question 30

s.52(1A)(c)

Answer 30

Exercise self-control

Question 31

s.52(1B)

Answer 31

An abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for D’s conduct if it causes, or is a significant contributory factor in causing, D to behave in that way

Question 32

Byrne (1960)

Answer 32

Facts: D was a sexual psychopath who suffered from irresistible impulses and he mutilated her body
Held: The CA held that an ‘abnormality of mind’ means a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that a reasonable man would term it abnormal

Question 33

Reynolds (1988)

Answer 33

Facts: 19 year old woman D battered her mother to death with a hammer
Held: The CA said D was temporarily unbalanced after the birth of her baby, and post-natal depression could be enough to create diminished responsibility

Question 34

Gittens (1984)

Answer 34

The jury should have been directed to disregard the effect o the drink and drugs and then consider whether the effect of the other cause(s) was enough that it substantially impaired D’s responsibility for his acts

Question 35

Dietschmann (2003)

Answer 35

Held: The decision in Gittens was confirmed by HoL

Question 36

R v Tandy (1989)

Answer 36

Facts: D was an alcoholic and charged with the murder of her 11yo daughter
Held: Drunkenness is not an ‘abnormality of the mind’, and only if alcoholism had reached such a state that the brain had been injured, or the drinking was purely involuntary

Question 37

Wood (2008)

Answer 37

Facts: After a days heavy drinking, a man killed D killed in a frenzied attack another man V who made sexual advances to him. D was a chronic alcoholic
Held: Drink is necessarily a voluntary choice if made by a chronic alcoholic. A man is suffering from alcohol dependency syndrome may be incapable of making a truly voluntary act