Voluntary Manslaughter

Question 1

Three types of defence

Answer 1

• General defences
• Capacity defences
• Special defences

Question 2

voluntary manslaughter successful plea

Answer 2

Successful plea does not exonerate the defendant - reduces the conviction from murder to manslaughter (and therefore avoids mandatory sentence for life imprisonment) n

Question 3

Diminished Responsibility

Answer 3

• Introduced by Sectikon 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 due to the narrowness of insanity as a defence
• Sectikon 52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 has rewritten the partial defence

Question 4

DR burden of proof

Answer 4

• Who must prove something
• D must prove shed can rely on the partial defence

Question 5

DR standard of proof

Answer 5

• The level of proof required
• D must prove she can rely on DR on the balance of probablities

Question 6

DR old definition criteria

Answer 6

1. D suffers from an abnormality of the mind
2. Arising from a condition of arrester or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury
3. Effect is to substantially impair D’s mental responsibility

Question 7

DR New definition criteria

Answer 7

1. D nsuffers from an abnormality of mental functioning
2. Arising from a recognised medical condition
3. Effect is to substantially impair D’s ability to do one of more of the things mentioned in 1A
4. The abnormality must provide an explanation for the killing

Question 8

D suffers from an abnormality of mental functioning

Answer 8

• The purpose of this element is to show D’s mental condition has affected her mind in some way

Question 9

Arising from a recognised medical condition

Answer 9

• More precise than the old law, plea is grounded on a medical diagnosis
• Covers both physical and psychological decisions
• Not every medical condition recognised by doctors will be recognised by the courta

Question 10

R v Stewart [2009] EWCA Crim 593

Answer 10

Where D suffers from alcoholism/alcohol dependency this will be sufficient as a recognised medical condition

Question 11

R v Dowds [2012] EWCA Crim 281

Answer 11

Voluntary acute intoxication is not a recogised medical condition for the purposes of DR

Question 12

Effect is to substantially impair D’s ability to do one or more of the things mentioned in 1A

Answer 12

‘Substantially’ is likely to mean ‘less than total and more than trivial’ - R v Squelch [2017] EWCA Crim 204

Question 13

1 A

Answer 13

• to understand the nature of D’s conduct
• to form a rational judgement
• toe exercise self-control

Question 14

The abnormality must provide an explanation for the killing

Answer 14

• Not in the old law
• Government insisted that a stronger causal requirement necessary
• Must show link between abnormality and the killing, the abnormality must be the ‘explanation’

Question 15

R v Joyce; R v Kay [2012] EWCA Crim 647

Answer 15

• Kay claimed to have schizophrenia and alcohol dependency disorder, killed while intoxicated
• Experts say his schizophrenia was stable and jury did not believe he has any other medical condition - No DR
• Joyce suffered from schizophrenia and was intoxicated at the time of the killing
• Schizophrenia was the main cause of his abnormality of mental functioning and so could rely on DR even though he was voluntarily intoxicated

Question 16

Provocation

Answer 16

Provocation developed at common law
- Modified by the Homicide Act 1957
- Now replaced by new provisions in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, now loss of control

Question 17

Loss of control, three tests

Answer 17

1. The subjective criterion - did the defendant lose self control
2. The cause - was loss of control attributable to a qualifying trigger?
3. The objective criterion - might a person of D’s sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint in the circumstances of D have reacted in a similar way?

Question 18

Provocation, old tests

Answer 18

1. The cause - was the defendant provoked?
2. The subjective criterion - did the defendant lose self control
3. The objective criterion - would the reasonable man have lose self control?

Question 19

Criticisms of provocation

Answer 19

• Requirement for loss of control to be ‘sudden’ favoured men and disadvantaged women
• Any evidence for provocation could be put before the jury

Question 20

Loss of Control burden of proof

Answer 20

• The prosecution must prove that D cannot rely on the partial defence

Question 21

Loss of control standard of proof

Answer 21

The prosectuion mujst disprove the defence beyond all reasonable doubt (almost certain that D cannot rely on loss of control)

Question 22

Limitation of loss of control

Answer 22

D cannot rely on loss of control if she acted in a considered desire for revenge