voluntary manslaughter

Question 1

when does voluntary manslaughter arise

Answer 1

• when D satfisies the actus reus and mens rea of murder, but there are 2 specical defences that arise

which reduce murder to manslaughter

Question 2

whats the first special defence

Answer 2

• loss of control

set out in s 54 of the coroners and justice act 2009

Question 3

what is the second special defence

Answer 3

diminished responsibility

set out in s 2 of the homoide at 1957 as amended by s 52 of the coroners and justice act 2009

Question 4

what is volntary manslaughter

Answer 4

• the verdict when the defendant has a partial defence to murder where the killing was carried out when the D was suffering from loss of control or diminished responsibility

Question 5

what is the law for loss control

Answer 5

• set out s 54 of the coroners and justice act 2009

Question 6

what must be proven to show the defence of loss control successful

Answer 6

• D must hav lost self control
• must be a qualifiying trigger
• person of the same sex and age would have reacted in the same way as the D in the same circumstances

Question 7

what does loss of control mean

Answer 7

• a partial defence to a charge of murder which reduces the offence to one of manslaughter under s 54 of the coroners jsutice act 2009

Question 8

defendents loss of control rules and regulations

Answer 8

• doesnt have to be sudden
• partial loss wont be sufficient
• temper , anger or a reaction out of character aint sufficient

Question 9

what case shows an example of regulations

Answer 9

r v jewell

D was unwell, sleepiing badly, tired and depressed and unable to think staight was not enoguh to prove there was loss of control

c

Question 10

what did r v jewell clarify for courts

Answer 10

• that for a successful loss of control defense there must be clear evidence, of a sudden and temporary loss of control

Question 11

what happens if the first component of loss of control isnt met

Answer 11

then theres no need to take in the other components

Question 12

what section states the qualifying triggers for loss of control

Answer 12

section 55

Question 13

what does section 55 state

Answer 13

qualifying triggers for loss of control

• the D’s fear of serious violence from the vicitm against the D or another person or (zeebedee)

a thing or things said or done which
- consitudes circumstances of an extremely grave character and

• caused the D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged s 55(4)

Question 14

what does fear of violence amount to

Answer 14

• it can be a qualifiying trigger
• D doesnt have to fear violence from V for it to be a qualifying trigger, can also fear violence from another idenfitied person

Question 15

what case shows fear of violence

Answer 15

R V WARD

killed a man in a fight after the man had attacked his brother.

CASE ESTABLISHED that you can use acting against someone else as a qualffying trigger

Question 16

show a case where you cant use fear of violence

Answer 16

• r v dawes

found his wife with V
stabbed and killed V
argued that he lost control due to the circumstances

rejected loss of control

case ESTABLISHED that defense of loss of control is not avaliable if D provoked the V into attacking him and then D attacked back

Question 17

things said or done-
who decides and what do they decide

Answer 17

jury
they deide if a reasonable person would lose control

Question 18

what type of trigger is things said or done

Answer 18

anger trigger

Question 19

what case shows that you cant use things said or done ina. criminal activity / or if provocation is not sufficent enough

Answer 19

• r v bowyer
• broke into someones house
• had a fght with homeowner
• homeowner cussed him
  -killed homeowner and claimed loss of self control due to provocation

rejected

case confirmed that loss of self control defense is not available if D was involeve din criminal activty

Question 20

another case for loss of control

failed

Answer 20

r v zebedee

• killed father
• father suffered from dementia
• repeatedly soiled himself
• claimed he lost control and killed him

rejected

reinforced that loss of control requires a qualifying trigger of extreme provocation/ fear of seriosu violence

Question 21

what case states that sexual infidenility can never be a qualifying trigger

+ insults

Answer 21

• 2009 act

case-
r v clinton

killed wife after she taunted him abt his sexual inadequancies,

claimed loss of control failed

established that distressing/ insults dont qualify for loss of control

Question 22

what about loss of control from mental disorder

-case

Answer 22

r v rejmanski

history of mental illness, killed his partner
claimed loss of control defense , arguing his mental illness triggered loss of control

rejected

case clarified that you cant use ur mental illness as a qualifiying factor for loss of control

Question 23

what about voluntary intoxicaation for loss of control

Answer 23

NO

r v asmelash, court refused to allow voluntary intoxication to be considered for either loss of control/ diminished responsbility

Question 24

who introduced the dr defence

Answer 24

homocide act 1957

set out in s 2(1) of homocide act as ameded by s 52 of the coroners and justice act 2009

Question 25

effect of the dr

Answer 25

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

• arse from a recognised medical condition
  substainially impared the defendants ability to
• understand the nature of his conduct or
• form a rational judgement

provides an explaination for the defendants acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing

Question 26

dr definition

Answer 26

partial defence to a charge of murder which reduces the offence to one of voluntary manslaughter

Question 27

what is the.4 stage test and how many elements have to be proven for the dr defence to be accepted

Answer 27

1. whether the defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning
2. if so, whtether it had arisen from a recognised medical condition
3. if so, whether it had substantially impaired their ability to either understand the nature of thie rconduct or to form a rational judgement or to excersie self control
4. if so, whether it provided an explaination for their conduct

Question 28

what is meant by abnormality of mental functioning

Answer 28

R. V BRYNE
court describe this as a

state of mind so different from an ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal

Question 29

r v bryne

Answer 29

• man with abnormal sexual urges, strangled, and mutilated a woman, claimed defense of diminished responsiblity , arguing that actions was due to abnormalilty of mind

accepted defence

this case established that an abnormality of mental functioning can provide a defense of diminished responsibility if it significantly impairs Ds mental

Question 30

recognised medical conditions

Answer 30

introduced into s 2 of the 1957 homocide act by the 2009 act

autism spectrum disorder = YUP
r v conroy, 2017 , 4 psychiatrists and coa decided it was a recognised mc

another recognised medical condition, paranoid personality disorder -
r v squelch 2017
3 psychiatrists and coa

Question 31

rmc extended coverings

Answer 31

psychological and physical conditions
any recognised mental disorder
any physical condition which affects mental functioning e.g epilespy, sleep disorders or diabetes

must prove medical evidence of a recognised mecial condition in the trial

Question 32

substantially impaired

Answer 32

• abnormality of mental functioning must substantially impair the D mental repsonsibility for his acts/ omission

Question 33

case for substantially impairment

Answer 33

R V LLOYD
said that substainal dont mean total, nor does it mean minimal or trivial
- its something in the middle and its the jurys job to decide if the Ds mental responsiblity is impaired and so, if so, whether it is substantially impaired

R V BRYNE
- appeal court said that question of whether the impairment was substainstail was fr the jury to decide

Question 34

what are the 3 things that the defendant must not be able to do for their ability to be classed as substantially impaired and how many of them do they have to qualify to

Answer 34

1. to understnad the nature of their conduct
2. to form a tational judgement
3. to exercise self control

Question 35

1. ability to understnad the nature of their conduct

Answer 35

• when d is in automatic state
• doesnt know what theyre doing/ suffers from delusions
• people with severe learning issues

Question 36

2. ability to form rational judgement

Answer 36

• paranoia
  -schizophrenia
• battered spouse syndrome

Question 37

3. ability to excersize self control

Answer 37

r v bryne

sexual psychopath, couldnt control his perverted desires
dr available to him

Question 38

dr intoxication case

Answer 38

r v dowds

stabbed partner to death
claimed dr and argued his intoxication was an abnormalilty of mentla functioning

REJCETED
case established that voluntary intoxication doesnt qualify as an abnormaliity of mental functioning for dr

Question 39

what if the D was intoxicated by als had a pre existing mental disorder

Answer 39

r v dietschmann

grieving relaative death, suffering from adjustment disorder, killed a man while intoxicated
claimed dr,

ACCEPTED
established that the d can use dr even if they were intoxicated , if they have a pre exisiting mental condition

Question 40

what does the case r v tandy say

Answer 40

strangled 11 year old daughter after consuming whole bottle of vodka, argued dr
alch was an abnormality of mind

REJECTED
only wouldve accepted if the alcholoism had reached a point where it caused braindamage/ made her drinking involuntary

Question 41

did D kill with malice aforethought? NO. =

Answer 41

no= D doesn’t have mens tea for murder, no need for diminished responsibility

Question 42

Yes= did D have an abnormality of mental functioning = NO

Answer 42

D can’t plead diminished responsibility

Question 43

YES= was D ability to , 1. understand the nature of his hers conduct and /or, form a rational judgement and/or exercise self control substantially impaired =. NO

Answer 43

D can’t plead diminished responsibility

Question 44

YES , does D’s abnormality provide an explanation for their conduct in doing or being a part of a killing= NO/YES

Answer 44

NO= can’t plead diminished responsibility

Yes= D has the defence of diminished respobility

D will be convinced of manslaughter not murder

Question 45

OVERVIEW diminished responsibility

Answer 45

Diminished responsibility = suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which , arose from
1 - a recognised medical condition ,
2 . -substantially impaired D’s ability to do one or more of the following

2.1 - understand the nature of the conduct,
2.2 - form a rational judgement
2.3- excersize self control

3. provide an explanation for Ds conduct

ACT = s2 (1) of the homicide act 1957 as amended by the coroners and justice act 2009

Question 46

OVERVIEW abnormality of mental functioning

Answer 46

a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would call it abnormal

case =. bryne 1960

Question 47

overview substantially impaired

Answer 47

a question of degree for the jury to decide
substaintial does not mean total or trivial or minimal but something in between

case = Lloyd
golds 2016