Vol Manslaugter LOC Flashcards
R v Clinton
D killed his ex wife following taunts,revelations about affairs and mental illness.
Held sexual infidelity by itself Is not a qualifying trigger.
R v dawes
D attacked v with a bottle after finding him asleep with his wife. V attacked D and then D stabbed V.
Held qualifying triggers based ins.55(3)(4)(5) still apply despite D,a bad behaviour, unless his actions were intended to provide him with the excuse or opportunity to use violence.
R v jewell
D had driven to v’s house, to pick them up and then shot him at gun point.
Held d lost the ability to act in accordance with considered judgement or in normal powers of reasoning. It was in revenge
R v hatter
D stabbed V because v had a relationship with another and then stabbed himself.
Court stated ‘circumstances must be extremely grave and D’s sense of being seriously wronged by them must be justifiable. ‘ no evidence shows relationship to cause party got loose control
R v ward
D killed v who physically attacked need D’s brother at a house party.
Held despite not fearing serious violence personally but a.55(3) nevertheless applied as he feared C would use violence on his brother
R v bowyer
D killed v, however it was held D had no justifiable sense of being wronged given that he was committing a burglary at the time of the offence
Asmelash
D and v both in an argument D stabbed v killing him. Held D’s intoxication was not relevant circumstance and should therefore be disregarded when jury applied the test.
Where is loss of control defined?
S.54 corners and justice act
What is the definition for LOC?
D must loose control because of a qualifying trigger, which a person of the same sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance would have reacted in the same way
What does s54 state?
D must loose control
What case states under s.54 the circumstances must be extremely grave and D’s send of being wronged must be justifiable?
R v hatter
What does s.55 define?
Qualifying trigger
What are the two types of qualifying triggers?
D’s fear of serious violence from v
Or somthing said it done by v that constituted circumstances of extremely grace character
What cases show D’s fear of serious violence?
R v ward
R v lodge
What cases show somthing said or done by v constituting to extremely grave circumstances?
R v Clinton
R v Dawes
What case shows that d must have been wronged?
R v boyer
What case shows that the defence is unavailable?
R v Jewell- defence not available to whose who act in revenge
What does s.54(1)(c) state?
Requires a person of D’s sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint in D’s circumstances have reacted in the same way. Question of jury
What case shows D’s intoxication is not relevant to the test?
Asmelash
A03- immediacy
No longer sudden, this was aid to help women who reacted in different ways. Law commission proposed to removed the loss of control element to help women in abusive relationships but was rejected
A03- unclear def on revenge
What is considered an act of revenge?
S.54(2) states LOC need not be sudden however if there is a delay from d reacting this can look like revenge
A03- limitations on fear tigger
First d must fear serious violence from V and will be used against D or another identified person(r v ward).
Carol whiteys writing on criminal law and justice states trigger was Particularly intended to assist women who fear violence at hand of abusive partners and subsequently kill. Note states that it can’t be fear that V will, in the future, use serious violence against people generally
A03- trigger for thing said or done
Trigger for things said or done covers roughly same terrain as old provocation. However 2 criteria’s added: things said or done constitutes circumstances of extremely grave character & D had a send of being wronged.
No further definition if offered meaning many inconsistencies in decisions until appeals interpret phrases across range of cases
