Partial Defences to Murder

Question 1

what do partial defences do

Answer 1

reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter

Question 2

what are the 2 types of voluntary manslaughter

Answer 2

-Diminished Responsibility
-Loss of Control

Question 3

who has to prove DR and by what standard

Answer 3

-D/defence has to prove DR due to internal mental conditions
-to the balance of probabilities

Question 4

where is law for DR found

Answer 4

s.2(1) Homicide Act 1957 , as amended by s.52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Question 5

what is stated in s.2(1) HA 1957 as amended by s.52 CJA 2009

Answer 5

-no murder conv if D suffering from abnormality of mental functioning which -
(a) arose from a recognised medical condition
(b) substantially impaired D’s ability to do one or more of things in subsection 1A
(c) provides explanation for D’s acts/omissions in doing/ being a party to killing

Question 6

what abilities must be substantially impaired in subsection 1A

Answer 6

-1A(a) to understand nature of Ds conduct
-(b) form rational judgement
-(c) exercise self - control

Question 7

give legal principles and cases regarding s.2(1) abnormality of mental functioning

Answer 7

-Byrne; ‘abnormality of mind’ = state of mind so different to that of ordinary human beings that a RP would term it abnormal

Question 8

give 5 legal principles and cases regarding s.2(1)(a) recognised mental condition

Answer 8

-must be accepted by one of two international classificatory systems of mental conditions
-R v Vinagre; Othello syndrome
-Gen rule that acute vol/intox not capable of DR except in R v Dowds
-no requirement for seriousness
-R v Hobson; battered womens syndrome

Question 9

which name the 2 international classificatory systems of mental conditions

Answer 9

-World Health Org International Classificatioon of Disease(ICD - 11)
-American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V)

Question 10

what happened / is the legal principle in R v Vinagre

Answer 10

-DR defence succeeded with Othello syndrome

Question 11

what happened / is the legal principle in R v Dowds

Answer 11

-generally acute vol/intox not capable of DR but
-R v Dowds; Cts said in some cases medical classification will be necessary but not always sufficient condition to raise DR
-vol/intox still sufficient

Question 12

what happened / is the legal principle in R v Hobson

Answer 12

-battered women’s syndrome = sufficient, murder conv quashed

Question 13

give 5 legal principles and cases regarding s.2(1)(b) substantial impairment (not 1A)

Answer 13

• no need for complete deprivation of ability
  -Golds; substantial = significant/weighty but do not direct jury to this
  -R v Dietschemann; can successfully plead DR even if vol/intox IF AoMF caused by internal factors is sufficient of itself to subst/imp ability
  -Wood and Stewart; alcoholism must be involuntary
  -R v Blackman; self-control may be substantially/imp even if not externally seen

Question 14

what happened / is the legal principle in Golds

Answer 14

-UKSC say substantial = significant/ weighty not ‘more than merely minimal’ but jury does not need to be directed on this meaning

Question 15

what happened / is the legal principle in R v Dietschemann

Answer 15

-can successfully plead DR, even if vol/ intox, IF AoMF caused by internal factors is sufficient of itself to substantially/imp responsibility
-L.Hutton says ask was D’s abnormality of mind such that he would have been under DR anyway, if sober

Question 16

what happened / is the legal principle in Wood and Stewart

Answer 16

-confirmed alcoholism must be invol

Question 17

what happened / is the legal principle in R v Blackman

Answer 17

-self control may be sufficiently impaired even if not externally discernable

Question 18

give legal principles and cases regarding s.2(1)(c) explains D’s act/omission

Answer 18

-must find link between AoMF and V’s death
-need not be sole cause of D’s conduct
-

Question 19

where does the law of Loss of Control come from

Answer 19

s.54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Question 20

what is LoC available for

Answer 20

ONLY murder

Question 21

for LoC who has the burden to prove what

Answer 21

-prosecution has burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt that 1 or more elements of defence is absent

Question 22

what is s.54(1) CAJA 2009

Answer 22

-D not convicted of murder if
(a) D’s act/omission in doing/being party to the killing resulted from D’s LoC
(b) LoC had a qualifying trigger
(c)person of D’s sex/age with a normal degree of balance and self restraint in circs of D might have reacted in the same/similar way to D

Question 23

give 7 legal principles regarding s.(54)(1)(a) D’s act/omission resulted from LoC

Answer 23

-subjective/factual test if D actually lost self control
-s.54(2); may be delay between triggering event + killing
-LoC must exist at time killing occurs
-must be inability to maintain not just a mere failure
-R v Richens; no requirement for complete LoC
-longer gaps between QT +killing not necessarily bar to defence
-R v Jewell; no defence if desire for revenge

Question 24

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Richens

Answer 24

-conv quashed as no requirement for complete loss of self control

Question 25

what happened/ is the legal principle of R v Jewell

Answer 25

-LoC does not apply if there is a considered desire for revenge

Question 26

what is s.55(5) CAJA 2009

Answer 26

• 2 qualifying triggers can be satisified in their own right or combination

Question 27

what is ss.55(2) (in relation to s.54(1)(b)

Answer 27

-LoC attributable to D’s fear of serious violence from V against D or another identifiable person
-no need for actual violence, D can incorrectly apprehend it

Question 28

what is s.55(6) CAJA 2009

Answer 28

-when determining whether a LoC had a QT-
(a) unavailable where D’s fear caused by thing D incited as an excuse for violence
(b)sense of being seriously wronged by a thing done/ said is not justifiable
(c)the fact a thing done/said constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded

Question 29

what is s.55(4) in relation to s.54(1)

Answer 29

-LoC attributable to things done/said which
(a) constituted circs of an extremely grave character
or (b) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being wronged

Question 30

how are circs of EGC (s.55(4) determined

Answer 30

-objective test but statute unclear what EGC means

Question 31

which 4 cases confirmed it to be an objective test for a justifiable sense of being wronged s.55(4)(b)

Answer 31

-Clinton; infidelity
-Dawes;incited by D
-Hatter; breakup
-Bowyer; D was a burglar so no EGC , no LoC

Question 32

what happened / legal principle in R v Rejmanski

Answer 32

-D’s mental condition ca be taken into account when deciding whether things done/said to D constituted sense of being seriously wronged
-NOT relevant to D’s capacity to exercise SC

Question 33

how must s.54(1)(c) be considered

Answer 33

must be read in conjunction with s.54(3)(1)(c); all of D’s circs must be considered

Question 34

what 2 part test does s.54(1)(c) and s.54(3)(1)(c) make

Answer 34

1. s.54(3)(1c), subjective; consider ALL of D’s circs (impact of QT and any other circs on the D
2. s.54(1)(c), objective; in light of those circs, assess D’s general capacity for tolerance/ self control to RP standard

Question 35

what is the principle of Camplin for LoC

Answer 35

jury can take into account any of D’s characteristics that made him susceptible to QT