Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law A2 > Voluntary Manslaughter > Flashcards

Voluntary Manslaughter Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

What two types of manslaughter are there?

A

Voluntary and Involuntary

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is the difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter?

A

The mens rea for voluntary manslaughter exists, involuntary it does not

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

When does voluntary manslaughter occur?

A

Where a defendant has the required actus reus and mens rea for murder, but there are mitigating circumstances.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is a defendant charged with if they plea voluntary manslaughter?

A

Murder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What are the two partial defenses to voluntary manslaughter?

A

Loss of Control

Diminished Responsibility

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What does a partial defense mean?

A

A successful partial defense means it reduces the defendants liability.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What Acr were the two partial defenses to murder created under?

A

Homicide Act 1957

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

According to the Homicide Act 1957, what are the two defenses to murder?

A

Provocation

Diminished Responsibilty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What ACt changed the two partial defences to murder?

A

Coroners and Justice Act 2009

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What did the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 change the partial defences of Provocation to?

A

Loss of Control

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What secetion of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 speaks about the defence of Loss of Control?

A

S54 and S55

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What does S54 (1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 speak about?

A

It lays out the parameters of the defence of Loss of control

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What does S54 (1) (a) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 say?

A

The defendant’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from his/her loss of self control

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What does S54 (1) (b) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 say?

A

The loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What does S54 (1) (c) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 say?

A

A person of the defendant’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of the defendant might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to the defendant.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What two sections of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 talk about the action of Loss of Control?

A

S54 (2)

S54 (4)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What does S54 (2) say?

A

The loss of control need not be sudden.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What does S54 (4) say?

A

Excludes the defence for a defendant who acted in revenge.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What five sections of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 talk about the Qualifying Triggers?

A 
S55
S55 (3)
S55 (4)
S55 (6)(a)(b)
S55 (6)(c)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What does S55 say?

A

Explains the meaning of “qualifying triggers”.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What can qualifying triggers be?

A

A fear of serious violence from the victim against the defendant or other named person
OR
things said or done of extremely grave character that caused the D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
OR
a combination of both

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What is the case associated with qualifying triggers?

A

R v Dawes (2013)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What happened in R v Dawes (2013) in relation to qualifying triggers?

A

The Court of Appeal gave its first interpretation of the meaning of “loss of control” where fear of violence was claimed, It ruled the circumstances in which ‘qualifying triggers’ will arise are more limited than in former provocation defences.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What does S55 (3) say?

A

Fear of serious violence - defendant has to prove that they lost self-control from a genuine fear of serious violence, judged subjectively.

25
Q

What does S55 (4) say?`

A

Things said or done or both - defendant has to prove that they lost self-control from things said/done which caused them to experience a justifiable sense of feeling seriously wronged.

26
Q

What is the case associated with Things said/done?

A

R v Dawes (2013)

27
Q

What happened in R v Dawes (2013) in relation to Things said/done?

A

Confirmed the sense of being seriously wronged is judged objectively by the jury.

28
Q

What does S5 (6)(a)(b) say?

A

Excludes a trigger that was self-induced by the defendant.

29
Q

What does S 55 (6)(c) say?

A

Excludes sexual infidelity as a qualifying trigger.

30
Q

What is the cases associated with sexual infidelity as a qualifying trigger?

A

R v Clinton (2012)

31
Q

What happened in R v Clinton (2012)?

A

Killed his wife after he found evidence of her sexual infidelity on Facebook. Trial judge refused evidence relating to the infidelity, CoA ordered a retrial due to judge’s misdirection about relevance of infidelity.

32
Q

What is the objective test associated with the standard of control?

A

The defendant’s behaviour is compared to a person of the defendant’s age and sex with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the defendant’s circumstances would have reacted the same or in a similar way.

33
Q

What is the case associated with Standard of Control?

A

R v Asmelash (2013)

34
Q

What happened in R v Asmelash (2013)?

A

CoA held loss of control has to be approached without reference to the defendant’s voluntary intoxication. If a sober person in the defendant’s circumstances would have behaved the same way than the defence will still be allowed.

35
Q

What section of the Coroners and Justice Report 2009 lays out Diminished Responsibility as a defence?

A

S52

36
Q

What three points must be achieved for Diminished Responsibility to be allowed as a defence?

A

Arose from a recognised medical condition.
Substantially impaired the defendant’s ability to understand the nature of his conduct OR form a rational judgement OR exercise self control.
Provides an explanation for the defendant’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.

37
Q

What wording has changed in relation to an abnormality of mental functioning?

A

Old defence of diminished responsibility referred to an “abnormality of mind” but was changed to “abnormality of mental functioning”.

38
Q

What is the case relating to an abnormality of mental functioning?

A

R v Byrne (1960)

39
Q

What happened in R v Byrne (1960)?

A

Byrne = sexual psychopath suffered from sexual desires unable to control. While under the influence he killed a girl. Murder conviction was reduced to manslaughter, court held that abnormality of mind meant ‘a state of mind so different from that of an ordinary person that the reasonable man would term it to be abnormal’. Objective test.

40
Q

Name three recognised medical conditions (and cases) which can reduce a murder conviction to manslaughter if used with diminished responsibility.

A
  1. Battered Woman Syndrome - R v Humphreys (1995)
  2. Depression - R v Gittens (1984)
  3. Psychopathy - R v Byrne (1960)
41
Q

What is the case relating to abnormality of mental functioning caused by a recognised medical condition?

A

R v Osbourne (2010)

42
Q

What happened in R v Osbourne (2010) in relation to mental functioning caused by a recognised medical condition?

A

CoA accepted ADHD could support a defence of diminished responsibility, however in this case it was more likely the defendants drug-taking and anger explained his conduct.

43
Q

According to the substantial impairment of responsibility section of the Defence of Diminished Responsibility what must the abnormality of the mind have done to be considered a defence?

A

Have ‘substantially impaired’ the defendant’s ability:
To understand the nature of his/her conduct
To form a rational judgement
To exercise self-control

44
Q

What are the three cases associated with Substantial Impairment of Responsibility?

A

R v Lloyd (1967)
R v Gold (2014)
R v Osbourne (2010)

45
Q

What happened in R v Lloyd (1967)?

A

Courts decided ‘substantially impaired’ meant “more than trivial but less than total”

46
Q

What happened in R v Gold (2014)?

A

D pleaded guilty to murdering partner, medical evidence provided evidence of diminished responsibility. Appealed due to trial judge error in refusing to direct the jury on the meaning of ‘substantial. CoA upheld conviction , gave ruling on the meaning of ‘substantial’ which is similar to that of R v Lloyd (1967).

47
Q

What happened in R v Osbourne (2010) in relation to substantial impairment of responsibility?

A

If abnormality made no difference to defendant’s behaviour, then the defence will not be available.

48
Q

What does the Coroners and Justice Report 2009 say about Diminished Responsibility and Intoxication?

A

Under old defence there was considerable case law looking at relevance of alcohol or drugs. Not clear if courts will apply same approach under new definition.

49
Q

What case is associated with diminished responsibility and intoxication?

A

R v Fenton (1975)

50
Q

What happened in R v Fenton (1975)?

A

Held mental abnormality caused by drink or drugs was not usually sufficient for a diminished responsibility plea.

51
Q

What seven cases are associated with Intoxication and a pre-existing abnormality of the mind?

A 
R v Gittens (1984)
R v Egan (1992)
R v Dietschmann (2003) HL
R v Tandy (1989)
R v Inseal (1992)
R v Wood (2008)
R v Dowds (2012)
52
Q

What happened in R v Gittens (1984)?

A

D suffered from depression, consumed large amounts of alcohol and killed his wife + step-daughter. Convicted of murder. CoA quashed murder conviction, substituted manslaughter because of misdirection to jury on use of intoxicants. Court said jury should be told to ignore alcohol or drugs in the defence consider if D had been sober.

53
Q

What happend in R v Egan (1992)

A

CoA confirmed R v Gittens on question a jury mist consider. ‘Was a defendant’s abnormality of the mind such that he would have been under diminished responsibility, drink or no drink’?

54
Q

What happened in R v Dietschmann (2003) HL

A

Killed man who was disrespectful to memory of late aunt. D drunk and suffering from grief induced adjustment disorder. Convicted of murder + appealed. HoL quashed murder conviction, substituted manslaughter.

55
Q

What happend in R v Tandy (1989)?

A

Court did not allow defence of DR because it wasn’t proved her drinking was involuntary. convicted of murder, CoA upheld conviction, due to she was unable to prove she couldn’t resist the first drink of the day.

56
Q

What happened in R v Inseal (1992)?

A

CoA followed ruling in R v Tandy, defendant convicted of murder despite his alcohol dependence syndrome. Not allowed to raise a diminished responsibility plea.

57
Q

What happened in R v Wood (2008)

A

D killed V with meat cleaver. Suffered from alcohol dependency syndrome. Using R v Tandy trial judge rejected DR plea. Convicted of murder, CoA quashed murder conviction, substituted manslaughter conviction.

58
Q

What happened in R v Dowds (2012)?

A

D and girlfriend = heavy binge drinkers, drank 2 bottles of vodka, he killed her. D argued he suffered from voluntary acute intoxication, but was not alcohol dependant. CoA dismissed appeal, rules voluntary acute intoxication is not capable of being relied upon to ‘found DR’

Law A2 (9 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions