Voluntary Manslaughter

Question 1

Loss of control

Answer 1

s54(1) Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Where the defendant kills or is a party to the killing of another, the defendant is not to be convicted of murder if:

(a) The defendant’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from his/her loss of self-control

(b) The loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, and

(c) A person of the defendant’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of the defendant might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to the defendant.

Question 2

s54(2)

Answer 2

The loss of control need not be sudden

The defendant’s action in killing must be the result of a loss of control. There is no need for the loss of self-control to be sudden.

Question 3

s54(4)

Answer 3

Excludes a defendant who acted in revenge.

A defendant cannot then rely on this defence even if he/she loses self-control as a result of a qualifying trigger.

Case : R v Ibrams & Gregory (1981)

Question 4

s55

Answer 4

Explains the meaning of “qualifying triggers”- which can be either

• a fear of serious violence from the victim against the defendant or another identified person OR
• things said or done of an extremely grave character that caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged OR
• a combination of both

Question 5

s.55 (3)

Answer 5

Fear of serious violence – the first of the qualifying triggers

The defendant has to show that s/he lost self-control because of a genuine fear of serious violence from the victim against him/her or another identified person. This fear does not have to be reasonable and is judged subjectively.

Question 6

s.55 (4)

Answer 6

Things said or done or both – the second of the qualifying triggers

This is where the defendant’s loss of self-control was due to things done or said or both that were of an extremely grave character causing the defendant to experience a justifiable sense of feeling seriously wronged.

Case : R v Dawes (2013)

Question 7

The standard of control

Answer 7

Comparison of the defendant with the ordinary person

Question 8

s.54(1)(c)

Answer 8

requires that a person of the defendant’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of the defendant, might have reacted in the same or similar way. This is a question for the jury to decide and is an objective test.

Question 9

s.54(1)(c) + s.54(3)

Answer 9

s.54(1)(c) makes explicit reference to just age and sex however, characteristics may be relevant when assessing the circumstances of the defendant although under s.54(3) circumstances which relate to the defendant’s general capacity to exercise tolerance and self-restraint are to be disregarded.

Question 10

Evaluation of loss of control

Answer 10

• The new defence is wider - It abolishes the rule in R v Duffy (1949)

The defence of loss of control tries to address the criticism that the defence of provocation was harsh, male centred and sexist towards women, especially battered women, with its emphasis on a ‘sudden loss of control’.

• The defence specifically denies the defence to someone who acted in revenge even if he/she lost self-control due to a qualifying trigger.
• The Act gives a defence to someone who loses control due to a fear of serious violence from the victim but this may be difficult to prove successfully.
• The defendant’s response to the qualifying trigger is judged objectively. The Act requires the jury to decide if a person of the defendant’s age and sex with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of the defendant might 8 have reacted in the same or similar way to the defendant.

Question 11

Diminished responsibility

Answer 11

Diminished responsibility is a form of voluntary manslaughter.

It is also a special defence as it is only available for the crime of murder.

It’s the : ‘abnormality of mental functioning’

Question 12

s.52 of The Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Answer 12

A person who kills or is a party to the killing of another is not to be convicted of murder if he/she was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which:

• Arose from a recognised medical condition,
• Substantially impaired the defendant’s ability to understand the nature of his conduct or form a rational judgment or exercise self-control, and
• Provides an explanation for the defendant’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing

Question 13

Abnormality of mental functioning

Answer 13

The test for abnormality of mental functioning is the reasonable man test

Case : R v Byrne (1960)

Question 14

The abnormality of mental functioning must have been caused by a recognised medical condition

Answer 14

The abnormality of mental functioning must have arisen from a condition recognised by medical professionals. This is aimed to modernise the defence and bring it into line with medical understanding of mental illness. So the defence will only be available if the defendant was suffering from a medically recognised condition when he/she killed the victim.

Some include :

• Paranoid personality disorder – R v Martin (2002)
• Depression – R v Gittens (1984)
• Battered woman syndrome - R v Thornton (1992)

Question 15

Substantial impairment of responsibility

Answer 15

• To understand the nature of his/her conduct
• To form a rational judgement
• To exercise self-control
• The Act does not define the phrase ‘substantially impaired’ and courts may be influenced by the meaning given to a similar phrase in the old defence.

Question 16

Diminished responsibility and intoxication

Answer 16

The defence becomes more complicated when the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the killing.

Case : R v Fenton (1975)

Question 17

Evaluation of diminished responsibility

Answer 17

• The new defence takes account of modern medical knowledge and the phrase ‘recognised medical condition’ allows for flexibility and development.
• Mental health issues can carry a stigma which may deter some defendants from using the diminished responsibility plea.
• A jury, not psychiatrists or doctors or a judge decides in the end if the defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which provides an explanation for killing the victim.