Paper 1: voluntary manslaughter Flashcards
What is the charge?
Murder, if at trial one of two special defences is successfully pleases the conviction will be reduced to voluntary manslaughter
Two special/partial defences?
Loss of control, diminished responsibility
What has the old law provocation been replaced by?
Loss of control under Corners and Justice Act 2009
What does s.54(1) state?
Where D kills or is party to the killing of another, D is not to be convicted of murder if:
s.54(1)(a)
D’s acts or omissions resulted from D’s loss of self-control
s.54(1)(b)
The loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger
s.54(1)(c)
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
Jewell (2014)
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
s.54(2)
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
S.54(4)
Excludes the defence where killing is motivated by a considered desire for revenge
Dawes (2013)
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
What does loss of self-control as a qualifying trigger come under?
s.55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
What is the fear trigger?
D’s loss of self-control was attributable to D’s fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person
What is the anger trigger?
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
3 restrictions on qualifying triggers
- 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
Ward (2012)
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)
Dawes (2013)
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
Hatter (2013)
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
Clinton (2012)
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
Dawes (2013)
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
Mohammed (2005)
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
Asmelash (2013)
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
What would you consider when seeing if the defence will succeed?
- 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
What did diminished responsibility come under?
This is covered by the Homicide Act 1957 as amended by s.52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
s.52(1)
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:
s.52(1)(a)
Arose from a recognised medical condition
s.52(1)(b)
Substantially impaired the defendants ability to do one of the following:
s.52(1A)(a)
Understand the nature of his conduct
s.52(1A)(b)
Form a rational judgement
s.52(1A)(c)
Exercise self-control
s.52(1B)
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
Byrne (1960)
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
Reynolds (1988)
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
Gittens (1984)
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
Dietschmann (2003)
Held: The decision in Gittens was confirmed by HoL
R v Tandy (1989)
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
Wood (2008)
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
