Partial Defences to Murder Flashcards
what do partial defences do
reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter
what are the 2 types of voluntary manslaughter
-Diminished Responsibility
-Loss of Control
who has to prove DR and by what standard
-D/defence has to prove DR due to internal mental conditions
-to the balance of probabilities
where is law for DR found
s.2(1) Homicide Act 1957 , as amended by s.52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009
what is stated in s.2(1) HA 1957 as amended by s.52 CJA 2009
-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
what abilities must be substantially impaired in subsection 1A
-1A(a) to understand nature of Ds conduct
-(b) form rational judgement
-(c) exercise self - control
give legal principles and cases regarding s.2(1) abnormality of mental functioning
-Byrne; ‘abnormality of mind’ = state of mind so different to that of ordinary human beings that a RP would term it abnormal
give 5 legal principles and cases regarding s.2(1)(a) recognised mental condition
-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
which name the 2 international classificatory systems of mental conditions
-World Health Org International Classificatioon of Disease(ICD - 11)
-American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V)
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Vinagre
-DR defence succeeded with Othello syndrome
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Dowds
-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
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Hobson
-battered women’s syndrome = sufficient, murder conv quashed
give 5 legal principles and cases regarding s.2(1)(b) substantial impairment (not 1A)
- 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
what happened / is the legal principle in Golds
-UKSC say substantial = significant/ weighty not ‘more than merely minimal’ but jury does not need to be directed on this meaning
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Dietschemann
-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
what happened / is the legal principle in Wood and Stewart
-confirmed alcoholism must be invol
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Blackman
-self control may be sufficiently impaired even if not externally discernable
give legal principles and cases regarding s.2(1)(c) explains D’s act/omission
-must find link between AoMF and V’s death
-need not be sole cause of D’s conduct
-
where does the law of Loss of Control come from
s.54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009
what is LoC available for
ONLY murder
for LoC who has the burden to prove what
-prosecution has burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt that 1 or more elements of defence is absent
what is s.54(1) CAJA 2009
-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
give 7 legal principles regarding s.(54)(1)(a) D’s act/omission resulted from LoC
-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
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Richens
-conv quashed as no requirement for complete loss of self control
what happened/ is the legal principle of R v Jewell
-LoC does not apply if there is a considered desire for revenge
what is s.55(5) CAJA 2009
- 2 qualifying triggers can be satisified in their own right or combination
what is ss.55(2) (in relation to s.54(1)(b)
-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
what is s.55(6) CAJA 2009
-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
what is s.55(4) in relation to s.54(1)
-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
how are circs of EGC (s.55(4) determined
-objective test but statute unclear what EGC means
which 4 cases confirmed it to be an objective test for a justifiable sense of being wronged s.55(4)(b)
-Clinton; infidelity
-Dawes;incited by D
-Hatter; breakup
-Bowyer; D was a burglar so no EGC , no LoC
what happened / legal principle in R v Rejmanski
-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
how must s.54(1)(c) be considered
must be read in conjunction with s.54(3)(1)(c); all of D’s circs must be considered
what 2 part test does s.54(1)(c) and s.54(3)(1)(c) make
- s.54(3)(1c), subjective; consider ALL of D’s circs (impact of QT and any other circs on the D
- s.54(1)(c), objective; in light of those circs, assess D’s general capacity for tolerance/ self control to RP standard
what is the principle of Camplin for LoC
jury can take into account any of D’s characteristics that made him susceptible to QT
