Voluntary Manslaughter Flashcards
What are the types of voluntary manslaughter?
Loss of control
Diminished responsibility
Suicide pact
What are the types of involuntary manslaughter?
Constructive manslaughter (ULAD)
Gross negligence manslaughter
Reckless manslaughter
How is one charged with voluntary manslaughter?
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.
If someone is charged with murder, and they have no defence, what happens?
Guilty of murder
If someone is charged with murder, and they have a defence of insanity, what happens?
Special verdict acquittal.
If somone is charged with murder and they have a partial defence, what happens?
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.
If someone is charged with murder and they have a full defence, what happens?
Not guilty.
What are the requirements for actus reus and mens rea for voluntary manslaughter?
Same as murder.
What is the authority for LOSC voluntary manslaughter?
S54 of Coroners and Justice Act 2009
What are the elements that need to be satisfied for a loss-of-contral voluntary manslaughter?
- Loss of control
- Qualifying trigger
- 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
R v Gurpinar 2015
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.
What is the test for a loss of control in establishing LOSC VM?
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)
R v Jewell
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
R v Dawes
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.
R v Dawson
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.
R v Martin
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.
What is the exclusion for LOSC defence?
Revenge or advanced planning. Examples: Jewell, Clinton
R v Clinton
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
What is the definition of a qualifying trigger for a LOSC VM?
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
What is the test for a fear of serious violence qualifying trigger?
Subjective test. Needs to be genuine fear, could be mistaken, need not be reasonable. Perceived violence can be against D or another person.
What is the test for the “sense of being seriously wronged” qualifying trigger?
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.
Is the sense of being seriously wronged subjective or objective?
Both. D must feel seriously wronged, but the feeling must also be objectively justifiable
What are exclusions to being seriously wronged?
Racist/honour killings
Circumstances alone
Things said or done that were incited by D
Infidelity/Break-ups*
R v Meanza
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
R v Hatter
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
What is the exclusion for fear of serious violence trigger?
Fear of violence is disregarded if caused by a thing which D incited to be said or done
What is the objective element required for a LOSC defence?
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
How does sobriety affect a LOSC defence?
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.
R v Asmelash
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.
How do psychiatric conditions and learning/communication disabilities affect a LOSC defence?
Not a relevant consideration for the objective element. Held to the standard of someone without that disability. - Rejmanski
R v Rejmanski 2017
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.
What is the authority for diminished responsibility voluntary manslaughter?
Homicide Act 1957, amended 2009 by Coroners and Justice Act
What are the requirements for a diminished responsibility defence?
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
What are the requirements for an abnormality of mental functioning in a diminished responsibility defence?
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
How impaired does D need to be for a successful diminished responsibility defence?
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
R v Golds
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
R v Conroy
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.
R v Squelch
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.
For a diminished responsibility defence to be successful the mental impairment must have a ______ ______ between condition and killing.
Causal link. The condition must cause or be a significant contributing factor.
R v Joyce and Kay
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.
How does sobriety affect a diminished responsibility defence?
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.
R v Stewart
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
What is the standard of burden of proof on a diminished responsibility defence?
D must raise and prove diminished resp on the balance of probabilities. Prosecution must prove all elements of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
What is the standard of burden of proof on a LOSC defence?
If enough evidence, then the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not lose control.
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.
R v Gurpinar 2015
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
R v Jewell
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.
R v Dawes
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.
R v Dawson
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.
R v Martin
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
R v Clinton
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
R v Meanza
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
R v Hatter
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.
R v Asmelash
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.
R v Rejmanski 2017
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
R v Golds
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.
R v Conroy
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.
R v Squelch
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.
R v Joyce and Kay
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
R v Stewart
