voluntary manslaughter Flashcards
briefly explain the 2 partial defences for voluntary manslaughter
- diminished responsibility
- loss of control
both defences are only available for murder and are partial as if they are successful, the D is not aquitted but instead has the offence reduced to manslaughter, meaning the judge is given a discretion of the sentence
what makes it voluntary manslaughter?
as D has to have the necessary mens rea for murder.
what act was the definition of diminished manslaughter contained in?
s2 of the Homicide Act as amended by s52 of the Coroner’s and Justices Act 2009
briefly give the AO1 of diminished responsibility
a person who kills or is party tp the killing of another and isn’t to be convicted of murder if he was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning (R v Bryne) which:
- **(a) **arose from a recognised medical condition(RMC): e.g. depression (R v Gittens), battered spouse syndrome (r v Ahliwalia), alcohol dependency syndrome (R v Wood)
- **(b) **substantially impaired D’s ability (R v Lloyd) to:
-understand the nature of his conduct (e.g. automatic state or delusions)
-form a rational judgement (e.g. battered spouse syndrome, paranoia)
-exercise self control (e.g. psychopath- R v Bryne)
- (c) “an abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for D’s conduct if it causes, or is a significant contributory factor”-S2(1)(b) Homicide Act
what are the 4 situations of when D is intoxicated and tries to use diminished responsibility?
- D is voluntarily intoxicated and tries to use diminished responsibility (R v Dowds)
- D is intoxicated and suffering from diminished diminished responsibility (R v Dietschmann)
- intoxication linked to addicition/spiked drinks where theintoxication is involuntary (R v Wood)
- D has some brain impairment as a result of alchol dependency syndrome (R v Wood)
give the AO1 of loss of control as a partial defence for voluntary manslaughter
also including:
- 2 possible triggers under S55(3) & S55(4)
- S54(1)(c) standard of self control
- LOC is a partial defence to charge of murder, reducing it to manslaughter. It provides that where a D kills he/she will not be convicted of murder if his act was due to the D’s loss of self control.
- D must have lost self control, described in R v Jewell as “a loss of the ability to act with considered judgement or normal powers of reasoning”
- the defence requires a qualifying trigger (there’s 2) but D cannot rely upon these if D incited the violence:
- S55(3) fear trigger- fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person (R v Ward). Subjective test of what’s in D’s mind at the time and fear doesn’t have to be reasonable just genuine.
- S55(4) anger trigger- things said or done of an extremely grave character which has caused the D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. This test is objective (Zebedee and hatter- no justifiable sense)
- S54(1)(c)- the court will decide if a person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint (R v Mohammed) and in the circumstances of D might have reacted in the same or similiar way to D. Takes into account history of sexual abuse (R v Hill) but not voluntary intoxication (R v Asmelash)
- sexual infidelity can no longer be used as a trigger unless it is used to contextualise other triggers.
- LOC no longer has to be sudden but watch out for a considered desire for revenge
what act introducted loss of control (LOC) that replaced provocation?
the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
give the 5 checklist points to think of in LOC scenarios
- Did D lose control?
- was there a qualifying trigger? which one: fear of serious violence against whom S55(3) or anger trigger (S55(4)?
- were they serious enough to give D a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged? would someone of his age, sex and circumstances act in the same way?
- anything excluded? sexual infidelity? revenge?
- anything else to comment on? was it sudden?
