Voluntary Manslaughter Flashcards
DR: S2 Homicide Act 1957 (amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 09)
A person who kills/is party to a killing is not to be convicted of murder if D suffers from an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition which substantially impairs D’s ability to (understand nature of his conduct/form a rational judgement/excessive self control) and this provides an explanation for D’s acts/omissions in the killing
DR: Byrne
Abnormality of mental functioning which is so different from an ordinary person’s that a reasonable person would call it abnormal
DR: Recognised medical condition: Martin
Paranoid personality disorder
DR: Ahluwalia
Battered Woman’s syndrome
DR: Seers
Depression
DR: Boots
Post natal depression
DR: Brown
Severe stress
DR: Edgington
Schizophrenia
DR: Di Duca
Immediate effects of alcohol/drugs (drunk/high) not RMC
DR: Wood
Alcohol dependency syndrome is a RMC A.D.S is desire to drink, difficulty controlling when/how much to drink - drink to avoid withdrawal - increased tolerance - neglecting other activities
DR: Tandy
If brain is damaged from alc abuse this can be rmc
DR: Abnormality must substantially impair: Golds
Substantial Impairment means abnormality makes a real difference to D’s conduct
DR: D’s abnormality must provide an explanation for his actions: S2(1B) Homicide Act
When the abnormality provides an explanation or is a significant contributory factor causing D to carry out his conduct
LoC: S54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009: where a person kills/is a party to the killing, D is not to be convicted of murder if
- D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted in D’s loss of control
- the loss of self control had a qualifying trigger
- a person of D’s sex and age with normal degree of tolerance and self restraint and circumstances of D might have reacted in the same/similar way
S54(1)(a)
D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D’s loss of control
S54(1)(b)
The loss of self control had a qualifying trigger
S54(1)(c)
A person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint and in circumstances of D might have reacted in the same or in a similar way (sexual infidelity can be taken into account as a circumstance)
Must result from loss of self control: Jewell
Loss of self control- “losing the ability to act in accordance with considered judgement or a loss of normal powers of reasoning”
Must result from loss of self control: S54(2) Dawes
D’s loss of self control need not be sudden
But the closer the loss of control is after the qualifying trigger, the easier it will be to prove
Must result from loss of self control: S54(4)
D cannot use the defence if D uses ‘considered desire for revenge’
D’s loss of self control must come from a qualifying trigger: S55(3)
SUBJECTIVE
Fear trigger
D’s loss of control must come from D’s fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person
Loss of control must come from qualifying trigger: Ellis
Can be fear of serious violence to an identified other
Loss of self control must come from qualifying trigger: S55(4)
D’s loss of self control must come from things said or done, which must be of extremely grave character and give D a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
2 parts anger trigger
- Things said or done
2. Extremely grave character and must give D a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
Anger trigger exclusion: S55(6)(c)
If the thing said or done was sexual infidelity it must be disregarded
Sexual infidelity exclusion: Clinton
It would be unrealistic to exclude it where it is integral to the facts of the case
If there is something said or done other than just infidelity ✅
If it’s not hard to understand why those things are so bad without infidelity✅
DR: Golds
Substantially impair means to make a real difference to D’s conduct
Qualifying trigger: Clinton
When using dear trigger, D must fear serious violence, not just violence
Anger trigger: evans
Used when not ‘extremely grave’
Qualifying triggers: Bowyer
Can be combination of triggers
Provide explanation D’s conduct: Dietschmann
As long as the abnormality of mental functioning is a significant factor in causing D’s conduct, we can take into account effects of intoxication/drugs
Incitement exclusion: S55(6)(a)&(b)
D cannot use loss of control defence if they incite the fear/anger trigger in order to provide an excuse for violence
A persons of D’s sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint and in circumstances of D might have reacted in the same way— subjective/objective?
Subjective: - sex and age - D’s circumstances Objective: - normal degree of tolerance and self restraint
Age&sex element: Gregson
If D has been taunted about a characteristic/circumstance relevant to the case, this can then be taken into account despite that it would affect level of self restraint
Age&sex element: Amelash
Intoxication not considered if only reduced tolerance/self restraint
Would only be considered if alcohol problem was what D was taunted about
S54(3)
Circumstances of D can include all D’s circumstances other than those who’s only relevance to the case is effecting tolerance & self restraint
