Voluntary ManSlaughter Flashcards
What is voluntary manslaughter?
Voluntary manslaughter is a homicide that would otherwise be considered murder, but is reduced due to a partial defense such as diminished responsibility or loss of control.
What are the two partial defenses to murder under voluntary manslaughter?
Diminished responsibility and loss of control.
Do you need to prove murder in order to use diminished responsibility or loss of control?
No, these defenses are used to reduce liability from murder to manslaughter.
Under what law is the defense of diminished responsibility outlined?
Section 2(1) of the Homicide Act 1957, as amended by s52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
Under what law is the defense of loss of control outlined?
Section 54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
What are the four elements required for the defense of diminished responsibility?
1) Abnormality of mental functioning, 2) Recognized medical condition, 3) Substantial impairment, and 4) Causal link to the defendant’s actions.
What case established the meaning of “abnormality of mental functioning”?
R v Byrne.
What must the abnormality of mental functioning be caused by?
A recognized medical condition.
How does R v Byrne define abnormality of mental functioning?
A state of mind so different from that of an ordinary person that a reasonable person would term it abnormal.
Is medical evidence necessary to support a claim of diminished responsibility?
Yes, medical evidence is needed to prove the recognized medical condition.
Does the Homicide Act list specific recognized medical conditions?
No, but cases provide examples such as depression, epilepsy, and battered spouse syndrome.
What recognized medical condition was argued in R v Campbell?
Frontal lobe brain damage and epilepsy.
What condition was recognized in R v Gittens?
Depression.
What was the condition in R v Ahluwalia and R v Hobson?
Battered spouse syndrome.
Does voluntary intoxication alone qualify as a recognized medical condition?
No, voluntary intoxication alone is not sufficient; it must be coupled with an underlying condition.
What does R v Tandy say about alcoholism as a defense?
Alcoholism may be a defense if it leads to an abnormality of mental functioning that affects the brain permanently.
In R v Dietschmann, what did the House of Lords say about alcohol and diminished responsibility?
They stated that if alcohol is removed, the defendant must still have an abnormality of mental functioning to use diminished responsibility.
What condition was accepted in R v Woods as a recognized medical condition?
Alcohol dependence syndrome.
Can alcohol dependence syndrome (ADS) support a diminished responsibility defense?
Yes, if it substantially impairs the defendant’s ability to function.
Why is acute voluntary intoxication not a recognized medical condition?
Because it is an external factor and does not permanently impair mental functioning.
What does ‘substantial impairment’ mean in diminished responsibility?
The defendant’s mental functioning must be more than trivially impaired but need not be totally impaired.
What three abilities must be substantially impaired for diminished responsibility to apply?
The ability to understand the nature of the act, form a rational judgment, or exercise self-control.
What case clarified that ‘substantial’ does not mean ‘total’ impairment?
R v Lloyd.
What does it mean to be unable to ‘form a rational judgment’?
The defendant cannot make reasoned decisions due to their abnormality of mental functioning.
How does the inability to ‘exercise self-control’ apply in diminished responsibility?
The defendant’s ability to control their actions is significantly impaired by their condition.
What must be proven between the abnormality and the defendant’s actions?
A causal link; the abnormality of mental functioning must explain the defendant’s conduct.
Why is it important to show the abnormality explains the defendant’s actions?
To establish that the condition led directly to the killing, thereby supporting the defense.
Can diminished responsibility apply if the abnormality did not contribute to the killing?
No, it must be a substantial factor in causing the defendant’s actions.
What is the significance of the phrase ‘provides an explanation’ in s2(1) Homicide Act?
It means that the abnormality must help explain why the defendant acted as they did.
What does R v Byrne illustrate about abnormality leading to conduct?
Byrne’s abnormality (irresistible impulses) directly caused his actions, reducing murder to manslaughter.
What are the three main elements of loss of control?
1) The defendant lost control, 2) there was a qualifying trigger, and 3) a person of similar characteristics might have acted similarly.
What does it mean to ‘lose control’ in this defense?
The defendant must genuinely lose their self-control, not just act out of temper or character.
Does loss of control need to be immediate?
No, under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, it no longer needs to be sudden.
What does R v Jewell demonstrate about losing control?
The defendant must truly lose control; mere anger or frustration is not enough.
What are the two types of qualifying triggers under s55?
The fear trigger and the anger trigger.
What is the fear trigger?
The defendant fears serious violence from the victim against themselves or another person.
Which section of the Coroners and Justice Act defines the fear trigger?
Section 55(3).
In what case was the fear trigger applied successfully?
R v Ward.
Can the fear trigger apply if the violence is anticipated but has not happened yet?
Yes, if the defendant genuinely fears that violence is imminent.
What must be shown for the fear trigger to apply?
The defendant’s fear of serious violence was genuine.
What is the anger trigger?
The defendant lost control due to something said or done that was extremely provocative.
Which section of the Coroners and Justice Act defines the anger trigger?
Section 55(4).
What case illustrates the use of the anger trigger?
R v Bowyer.
What type of conduct qualifies for the anger trigger?
Conduct that is extremely grave and caused the defendant to feel justifiably wronged.
Can a trivial act trigger loss of control under the anger trigger?
No, it must be a significant provocation that justifiably angers the defendant.
What is the objective test for loss of control?
Whether a person of the same age and sex, with a normal degree of tolerance, would have reacted similarly.
Which section of the Coroners and Justice Act sets out this objective test?
Section 54(1)(c).
What does R v Camplin illustrate about age and sex in the objective test?
The jury must consider how someone of the defendant’s age and sex might react.
