voluntary manslaughter Flashcards
when does voluntary manslaughter arise
- when D satfisies the actus reus and mens rea of murder, but there are 2 specical defences that arise
which reduce murder to manslaughter
whats the first special defence
- loss of control
set out in s 54 of the coroners and justice act 2009
what is the second special defence
diminished responsibility
set out in s 2 of the homoide at 1957 as amended by s 52 of the coroners and justice act 2009
what is volntary manslaughter
- 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
what is the law for loss control
- set out s 54 of the coroners and justice act 2009
what must be proven to show the defence of loss control successful
- 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
what does loss of control mean
- 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
defendents loss of control rules and regulations
- doesnt have to be sudden
- partial loss wont be sufficient
- temper , anger or a reaction out of character aint sufficient
JEWELL CASE
what case shows an example of regulations
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
what did r v jewell clarify for courts
- that for a successful loss of control defense there must be clear evidence, of a sudden and temporary loss of control
what happens if the first component of loss of control isnt met
then theres no need to take in the other components
what section states the qualifying triggers for loss of control
section 55
what does section 55 state
qualifying triggers for loss of control
- the D’s fear of serious violence from the vicitm against the D or another person ( ward)
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)
what does fear of violence amount to
- 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
what case shows fear of violence
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
show a case where you cant use fear of violence
- 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
things said or done-
who decides and what do they decide
jury
they deide if a reasonable person would lose control
what type of trigger is things said or done
anger trigger
what case shows that you cant use things said or done ina. criminal activity / or if provocation is not sufficent enough
- 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
another case for loss of control
failed
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
what case states that sexual infidenility can never be a qualifying trigger
+ insults
- 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
what about loss of control from mental disorder
-case
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
what about voluntary intoxicaation for loss of control
NO
r v asmelash, court refused to allow voluntary intoxication to be considered for either loss of control/ diminished responsbility
who introduced the dr defence
set out in s 2(1) of homocide act 1957 and ameded by s 52 of the coroners and justice act 2009
effect of the dr
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
dr definition
partial defence to a charge of murder which reduces the offence to one of voluntary manslaughter
what is the.4 stage test and how many elements have to be proven for the dr defence to be accepted
- whether the defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning
- if so, whtether it had arisen from a recognised medical condition
- 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
- if so, whether it provided an explaination for their conduct
what is meant by abnormality of mental functioning
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
r v bryne
- 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
recognised medical conditions
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
rmc extended coverings
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
substantially impaired
- abnormality of mental functioning must substantially impair the D mental repsonsibility for his acts/ omission
case for substantially impairment
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
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
- to understnad the nature of their conduct
- to form a tational judgement
- to exercise self control
- ability to understnad the nature of their conduct
- when d is in automatic state
- doesnt know what theyre doing/ suffers from delusions
- people with severe learning issues
- ability to form rational judgement
- paranoia
-schizophrenia - battered spouse syndrome
- ability to excersize self control
r v bryne
sexual psychopath, couldnt control his perverted desires
dr available to him
dr intoxication case
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
what if the D was intoxicated by als had a pre existing mental disorder
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
what does the case r v tandy say
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
did D kill with malice aforethought? NO. =
no= D doesn’t have mens tea for murder, no need for diminished responsibility
Yes= did D have an abnormality of mental functioning = NO
D can’t plead diminished responsibility
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
D can’t plead diminished responsibility
YES , does D’s abnormality provide an explanation for their conduct in doing or being a part of a killing= NO/YES
NO= can’t plead diminished responsibility
Yes= D has the defence of diminished respobility
D will be convinced of manslaughter not murder
OVERVIEW diminished responsibility
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
- provide an explanation for Ds conduct
ACT = s2 (1) of the homicide act 1957 as amended by the coroners and justice act 2009
OVERVIEW abnormality of mental functioning
a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would call it abnormal
case =. bryne 1960
overview substantially impaired
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
