Voluntary Manslaughter

Question 1

What are the types of voluntary manslaughter?

Answer 1

Loss of control
Diminished responsibility
Suicide pact

Question 2

What are the types of involuntary manslaughter?

Answer 2

Constructive manslaughter (ULAD)
Gross negligence manslaughter
Reckless manslaughter

Question 3

How is one charged with voluntary manslaughter?

Answer 3

They aren’t. They would be charged with murder, offer a partial defence, and the charge would be downgraded if successful. Strategy is to avoid the mandatory life sentence for murder.

Question 4

If someone is charged with murder, and they have no defence, what happens?

Answer 4

Guilty of murder

Question 5

If someone is charged with murder, and they have a defence of insanity, what happens?

Answer 5

Special verdict acquittal.

Question 6

If somone is charged with murder and they have a partial defence, what happens?

Answer 6

If their plea is accepted, then there’s no trial and judge has full discretion in sentencing for voluntary manslaughter.
If plea rejected, then goes to murder trial and the jury decides whether the partial defence is successful and finds them guilty for voluntary manslaughter.

Question 7

If someone is charged with murder and they have a full defence, what happens?

Answer 7

Not guilty.

Question 8

What are the requirements for actus reus and mens rea for voluntary manslaughter?

Answer 8

Same as murder.

Question 9

What is the authority for LOSC voluntary manslaughter?

Answer 9

S54 of Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Question 10

What are the elements that need to be satisfied for a loss-of-contral voluntary manslaughter?

Answer 10

1. Loss of control
2. Qualifying trigger
3. Objective element.

All of the above are considered sequentially and separately. All 3 are essential. Evidence is required to support the defence and case is fact sensitive.
Authority: Gurpinar

Question 11

R v Gurpinar 2015

Answer 11

Facts: Defendant stabbed someone during a pre-arranged fight. He was charged with murder. The trial judge did not ask the jury to rule on LOSC. Defendant appealed on the basis that the judge should have asked the jury to consider LOSC.
Appeal dismissed as there was insufficient evidence for a jury to consider LOSC.

Significance: There must be sufficient evidence on each of the three requirements for LOSC in order to ask the jury to consider the LOSC defence, and the judge must consider each of the three requirements sequentially.

Question 12

What is the test for a loss of control in establishing LOSC VM?

Answer 12

Loss of control is a subjective test.
Not complete insanity or automatism - Still must be aware enough to have MR for murder
Loss of “considered judgement” or “normal powers of reasoning” - R v Jewell
More than panic or fear (R v Martin)
Need not be sudden and temporary loss of self control. Can be cumulative impact of multiple events. (R v Dawes)

Question 13

R v Jewell

Answer 13

Facts: D and V carpooled to work every morning. D drove to V’s house and shot him twice, then fled in a van. When later arrested, he had a survival kit and multiple firearms with him.
Not enough evidence for LOSC, as the acquisition of firearms, cash, etc all point to pre-meditated attack.

Significance: Planning undermines LOSC defence

Question 14

R v Dawes

Answer 14

Facts:Defendant stabbed victim multiple times after finding him asleep on a sofa with D’s estranged wife. Defence was that it was self-defence, as V had come at him with a bottle, so he grabbed a knife. Question as to whether finding them on the sofa was a qualifying trigger, as it concerns sexual infidelity. Appeal found no significant evidence of loss of self control.

Significance: Sudden and temporary loss of self control not enough to be a LOSC - must have qualifying trigger.

Question 15

R v Dawson

Answer 15

Facts: V frequently used a public footpath to cross a field belonging to D. V often engaged in anti-social behaviour, occasionally property damage. V was found dead after a brutal and sustained attack with an air rifle and blunt instruments. D pleaded loss of control - while there was evidence of a frenzied attack, there was not enough evidence to support a loss of control. Additionally, V’s behaviour while annoying/maddening, were not a sufficient qualifying trigger.

Significance: Frenzied attack does not necessarily equate to LOSC. Criminal actions don’t necessarily equate to being seriously wronged.

Question 16

R v Martin

Answer 16

Facts: D repeatedly stabbed V after an argument got out of hand. No evidence supporting loss of control.

Significance: Threshold for loss of self control is more than panic or fear. If both defence and loss of control are asserted, then evidence for both should be assessed before giving jury direction re: loss of control.

Question 17

What is the exclusion for LOSC defence?

Answer 17

Revenge or advanced planning. Examples: Jewell, Clinton

Question 18

R v Clinton

Answer 18

Facts: A woman was taunting her partner about having been with his friends, they were better than him, etc, and he killed her. Used the LOSC defence.

Significance: Taunting about sexual infidelity can be a qualifying trigger, even if the infidelity itself is not. Obiter: Prior deliberation undermines loss of self control

Question 19

What is the definition of a qualifying trigger for a LOSC VM?

Answer 19

1) A fear of serious violence from V against D or another person and / or
2) A sense of being seriously wronged by things said or done

Question 20

What is the test for a fear of serious violence qualifying trigger?

Answer 20

Subjective test. Needs to be genuine fear, could be mistaken, need not be reasonable. Perceived violence can be against D or another person.

Question 21

What is the test for the “sense of being seriously wronged” qualifying trigger?

Answer 21

Must be attributable to:
1) things said or done (not necessarily by V)
2) constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character
3) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.

Question 22

Is the sense of being seriously wronged subjective or objective?

Answer 22

Both. D must feel seriously wronged, but the feeling must also be objectively justifiable

Question 23

What are exclusions to being seriously wronged?

Answer 23

Racist/honour killings
Circumstances alone
Things said or done that were incited by D
Infidelity/Break-ups*

Question 24

R v Meanza

Answer 24

Facts: D was sequestered in a hospital. Girlfriend came to visit him, wasn’t allowed to see him. He killed the nurse who told him that.

Significance: Feeling of being seriously wronged must be justifiable

Question 25

R v Hatter

Answer 25

Facts: The “look what you made me do” case. Hatter killed V in her kitchen with a cooking knife for supposed infidelity. No evidence of a loss of control, the only qualifying trigger appeared to be the sexual infidelity which is statutorily excluded.

Significance: A break-up is not normally enough on its own to constitute a justifiable sense of being wronged

Question 26

What is the exclusion for fear of serious violence trigger?

Answer 26

Fear of violence is disregarded if caused by a thing which D incited to be said or done

Question 27

What is the objective element required for a LOSC defence?

Answer 27

1) a person of D’s sex and age
2) with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint
3) in the same circumstances
4) might have reacted in the same or similar way

Question 28

How does sobriety affect a LOSC defence?

Answer 28

Voluntary intoxication is not included in considering the circumstance part of the objective test. I.E. when comparing conduct to a reasonable person, that reasonable person is sober.

Question 29

R v Asmelash

Answer 29

Facts: D stabbed V in the chest. They lived together and often drank together, both intoxicated at the time. Evidence suggested that V was aggressive and abusive, and D swung with the knife because he was frightened. Defence failed because it failed on the objective test - a (sober) person of same age and sex would not have reacted in this way.

Significance: Voluntary intoxication not taken into account in LOSC.

Question 30

How do psychiatric conditions and learning/communication disabilities affect a LOSC defence?

Answer 30

Not a relevant consideration for the objective element. Held to the standard of someone without that disability. - Rejmanski

Question 31

R v Rejmanski 2017

Answer 31

Facts: D was suffering from PTSD.

Significance: LOSC objectivity test does not include psychiatric conditions, learning/communication disabilities, etc. You are judged against the standard of a person without the same conditions/disabilities.

Question 32

What is the authority for diminished responsibility voluntary manslaughter?

Answer 32

Homicide Act 1957, amended 2009 by Coroners and Justice Act

Question 33

What are the requirements for a diminished responsibility defence?

Answer 33

D suffered from:
1) abnormality of mental functioning
2) arising from a recognised medical condition
3) Substantially impaired their ability to form rational judgment/exercise self-control/understand the nature of their conduct
4) Provides an explanation for D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing

Question 34

What are the requirements for an abnormality of mental functioning in a diminished responsibility defence?

Answer 34

Includes diseases such as chronic alcoholism (but not voluntary, momentary insobriety)
Does not have to be enduring mental condition, only present at time of the homicide
Expert evidence is required

Question 35

How impaired does D need to be for a successful diminished responsibility defence?

Answer 35

Impairment must be weighty, important, significant - R v Golds
Rational judgment need not be totally impaired - R v Conroy
Less than total and more than trivial - Squelch

Question 36

R v Golds

Answer 36

Facts: D killed his partner. Medical evidence confirmed the mental impairment, question was the amount of impact it had on his mental impact. I.e. what qualifies as a “substantial” impairment? Found not to be substantial enough, was convicted of murder.

Significance: Diminished resp defence requires weighty, important, significant impairment

Question 37

R v Conroy

Answer 37

Facts: D believed his neighbour was a Martian, planned to murder him

Significance: Rational judgement wasn’t totally impaired. Came to a rational conclusion based on an irrational perception.

Question 38

R v Squelch

Answer 38

Facts: D and V were colleagues and regularly carpooled. D blamed V for a recent blackout and began carrying a knife to work. One day he stabbed V numerous times shortly after they arrived at work. Confirmed D had paranoid personality disorder which caused an abnormality of mental functioning. Experts disagreed about whether it led to a substantial impairment.

Significance: Dimished responsibility requires “less than total and more than trivial” impairment.

Question 39

For a diminished responsibility defence to be successful the mental impairment must have a ______ ______ between condition and killing.

Answer 39

Causal link. The condition must cause or be a significant contributing factor.

Question 40

R v Joyce and Kay

Answer 40

Facts: Kay was a paranoid schizophrenic as well as a habitual drinker and drug user. After a 3 day bender, he entered the victim’s garage and stabbed him with a kitchen knife. Joyce had the same condition, took illegal drugs, then took a knife from a shop and stabbed a customer to death with it. Medical evidence established that Joyce’s condition was severe enough that it would substantially impair his mind without intoxication. The evidence did not show the same for Kay.

Significance: Example of voluntary intoxication in diminished responsibility defence.

Question 41

How does sobriety affect a diminished responsibility defence?

Answer 41

Voluntary intoxication alone does not count as a recognised mental condition
If co-existing with mental disorder, then the intoxication cannot be the sole causal factor.
Drug or alcohol dependency, or damage to the brain resulting from repeated use, can be recognised mental condition.
If intoxication is involuntary, can be accounted for - R v Stewart
If they were so dependent as being unable to resist impulse, can be considered.

Question 42

R v Stewart

Answer 42

Facts: D had a fight with V and killed them. D suffered from alcohol dependency (but no brain damage) and had been drinking in the 10 days prior, argued diminished responsibility. Alcohol dependency can be a medical condition for diminished responsibility, if it satisfies the other criteria.

Significance: Example of intoxication and diminished responsibility defence

Question 43

What is the standard of burden of proof on a diminished responsibility defence?

Answer 43

D must raise and prove diminished resp on the balance of probabilities. Prosecution must prove all elements of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

Question 44

What is the standard of burden of proof on a LOSC defence?

Answer 44

If enough evidence, then the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not lose control.

Question 45

Facts: Defendant stabbed someone during a pre-arranged fight. He was charged with murder. The trial judge did not ask the jury to rule on LOSC. Defendant appealed on the basis that the judge should have asked the jury to consider LOSC.
Appeal dismissed as there was insufficient evidence for a jury to consider LOSC.

Significance: There must be sufficient evidence on each of the three requirements for LOSC in order to ask the jury to consider the LOSC defence, and the judge must consider each of the three requirements sequentially.

Answer 45

R v Gurpinar 2015

Question 46

Facts: D and V carpooled to work every morning. D drove to V’s house and shot him twice, then fled in a van. When later arrested, he had a survival kit and multiple firearms with him.
Not enough evidence for LOSC, as the acquisition of firearms, cash, etc all point to pre-meditated attack.

Significance: Planning undermines LOSC defence

Answer 46

R v Jewell

Question 47

Facts:Defendant stabbed victim multiple times after finding him asleep on a sofa with D’s estranged wife. Defence was that it was self-defence, as V had come at him with a bottle, so he grabbed a knife. Question as to whether finding them on the sofa was a qualifying trigger, as it concerns sexual infidelity. Appeal found no significant evidence of loss of self control.

Significance: Sudden and temporary loss of self control not enough to be a LOSC - must have qualifying trigger.

Answer 47

R v Dawes

Question 48

Facts: V frequently used a public footpath to cross a field belonging to D. V often engaged in anti-social behaviour, occasionally property damage. V was found dead after a brutal and sustained attack with an air rifle and blunt instruments. D pleaded loss of control - while there was evidence of a frenzied attack, there was not enough evidence to support a loss of control. Additionally, V’s behaviour while annoying/maddening, were not a sufficient qualifying trigger.

Significance: Frenzied attack does not necessarily equate to LOSC. Criminal actions don’t necessarily equate to being seriously wronged.

Answer 48

R v Dawson

Question 49

Facts: D repeatedly stabbed V after an argument got out of hand. No evidence supporting loss of control.

Significance: Threshold for loss of self control is more than panic or fear. If both defence and loss of control are asserted, then evidence for both should be assessed before giving jury direction re: loss of control.

Answer 49

R v Martin

Question 50

Facts: A woman was taunting her partner about having been with his friends, they were better than him, etc, and he killed her. Used the LOSC defence.

Significance: Taunting about sexual infidelity can be a qualifying trigger, even if the infidelity itself is not. Obiter: Prior deliberation undermines loss of self control

Answer 50

R v Clinton

Question 51

Facts: D was sequestered in a hospital. Girlfriend came to visit him, wasn’t allowed to see him. He killed the nurse who told him that.

Significance: Feeling of being seriously wronged must be justifiable

Answer 51

R v Meanza

Question 52

Facts: The “look what you made me do” case. Hatter killed V in her kitchen with a cooking knife for supposed infidelity. No evidence of a loss of control, the only qualifying trigger appeared to be the sexual infidelity which is statutorily excluded.

Significance: A break-up is not normally enough on its own to constitute a justifiable sense of being wronged

Answer 52

R v Hatter

Question 53

Facts: D stabbed V in the chest. They lived together and often drank together, both intoxicated at the time. Evidence suggested that V was aggressive and abusive, and D swung with the knife because he was frightened. Defence failed because it failed on the objective test - a (sober) person of same age and sex would not have reacted in this way.

Significance: Voluntary intoxication not taken into account in LOSC.

Answer 53

R v Asmelash

Question 54

Facts: D was suffering from PTSD.

Significance: LOSC objectivity test does not include psychiatric conditions, learning/communication disabilities, etc. You are judged against the standard of a person without the same conditions/disabilities.

Answer 54

R v Rejmanski 2017

Question 55

Facts: D killed his partner. Medical evidence confirmed the mental impairment, question was the amount of impact it had on his mental impact. I.e. what qualifies as a “substantial” impairment? Found not to be substantial enough, was convicted of murder.

Significance: Diminished resp defence requires weighty, important, significant impairment

Answer 55

R v Golds

Question 56

Facts: D believed his neighbour was a Martian, planned to murder him

Significance: Rational judgement wasn’t totally impaired. Came to a rational conclusion based on an irrational perception.

Answer 56

R v Conroy

Question 57

Facts: D and V were colleagues and regularly carpooled. D blamed V for a recent blackout and began carrying a knife to work. One day he stabbed V numerous times shortly after they arrived at work. Confirmed D had paranoid personality disorder which caused an abnormality of mental functioning. Experts disagreed about whether it led to a substantial impairment.

Significance: Dimished responsibility requires “less than total and more than trivial” impairment.

Answer 57

R v Squelch

Question 58

Facts: Kay was a paranoid schizophrenic as well as a habitual drinker and drug user. After a 3 day bender, he entered the victim’s garage and stabbed him with a kitchen knife. Joyce had the same condition, took illegal drugs, then took a knife from a shop and stabbed a customer to death with it. Medical evidence established that Joyce’s condition was severe enough that it would substantially impair his mind without intoxication. The evidence did not show the same for Kay.

Significance: Example of voluntary intoxication in diminished responsibility defence.

Answer 58

R v Joyce and Kay

Question 59

Facts: D had a fight with V and killed them. D suffered from alcohol dependency (but no brain damage) and had been drinking in the 10 days prior, argued diminished responsibility. Alcohol dependency can be a medical condition for diminished responsibility, if it satisfies the other criteria.

Significance: Example of intoxication and diminished responsibility defence

Answer 59

R v Stewart