Voluntary Manslaughter Flashcards
What are the two types of voluntary manslaughter?
- Loss of control
- Diminished responsibility
What is loss of control?
Where D causes death but lost self control and reacted as a ‘normal person’ might have in D’s situation
What was s.54 Coroners and Justice Act?
- 2009
Can be convicted of manslaughter where there exists: - A loss of self control
- The loss of control had a ‘qualifying trigger’
- A person of D’s sex/age/normal degree of tolerance/self-restraint in the circumstances of D might have reacted in the same way D did
Loss of self control (LOC)
- Loss of ability to act in accordance with considered judgement
- Judged subjectively
- Need not be sudden: s.54(2), it may follow from the cumulative impact of earlier events
- Excludes revenge: s.54(4)
What is a case for loss of self control? (LOC)
- Jewell 2014
- D shot V point blank range, tried to argue it was because he lost control
- There was overwhelming evidence that this was a planned execution
What is a qualifying trigger? (LOC)
- Loss of control must be attributable to a ‘qualifying trigger’
- Set out in s.55
- Fear or anger trigger
The fear trigger (LOC)
- s.55(3)
- D fears serious violence from V against D or another identified person
What is a case for the fear trigger? (LOC)
- Ward 2012
- D killed V after V attacked D’s brother
- s.55(3) applied as D feared V would use serious violence towards his brother (identifiable person)
The anger trigger (LOC)
- s.55(4)
Things said or done which are: - Of an extremely grave nature
- Caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
What is a case for the anger trigger? (LOC)
- Zebedee 2012
- D lost control when his 94yr old father (alzheimer’s) repeatedly soiled himself
- Neither of the 2 condition in s.55(4) were satisfied
What are the limitations on qualifying triggers? (LOC)
- s.55(6)
- Sexual infidelity (Clinton 2012)
- Incitement (Dawes 2013)
- Revenge
What is the normal person test?
- a.54(1)(c)
- Person of D’s sex/age, normal degree of tolerance/self-restraint in the circumstances of D would have reacted in the same way
Degree of tolerance and self-restraint (NPT)
- Objective test
- Jury cannot consider (except sex/age) any circumstance of D that may have made them have less control
Circumstances of D (NPT)
- Looks at D’s circumstances apart from those whose only relevance is to bear on D’s general capacity for tolerance and self restraint s.54(3)
- e.g short temper, prejudices like racism and homophobia are not allowed
- History of sexual abuse/sexual infidelity could be a relevant circumstance
- Mental illness may be a relevant circumstance, but is not relevant to the question of the normal degree of tolerance
Case for circumstances of D (NPT)
- Rejmanski 2017
- D flew into a rage and killed V who had made negative comments about his military service
- Court of Appeal said PTSD had to be excluded from description of a ‘normal person’
- However court suggested, obiter, an eg where a mental disorder could be relevant as one of D’s circumstances
Voluntary intoxication (NPT)
- Not a circumstance for the purposes of the normal person test
- However if D had a serious alcohol problem and was taunted about it to the point of a QT, the alcohol would form part of the circumstances
Case for voluntary intoxication (NPT)
- Asmslash 2013
- D claimed V was abisive making D lose control and kill V
- Court decided that the fact D was drunk was not one of his circumstances
Similar/same way as D (NPT)
Defence will fail if the ‘normal person’ would have lost control but would not have reacted in the same way
Case for same/similar way (NPT)
- Christian 2018
- D stabbed two Vs to death after an altercation about temperature of the shower water
- Despite evidence of loss of control, judge ruled it should not be up to the jury as D’s reaction was so extreme
- No jury could conclude that a ‘normal person’ would react in the same way
Who does the burden of proof lie with?
- If sufficient evidence is adduced, jury must assume the defence is satisfied unless prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is not
- s.54(5)
