Voluntary Manslaughter Flashcards
Loss of control
A partial defence to murder.
A statutory defence which can be found under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
R v Gurpinar
“It should rarely be necessary to look at cases decided under the old law of provocation… the loss of control defence… is fully encompassed within the statutory provisions”
S54 (1) Coroners and Justice Act 2009
When a person kills or is a party to a killing, D will not be convicted of murder if…
S54 (1) (a)
D’s act or omission in doing/ being a party to the killing resulted from D’s loss of self control
Jewell
‘Losing the ability to act in accordance with considered judgement or a loss of normal powers of reasoning’
S54 (2)
D’s loss of self control need not be sudden. However, the sooner it is after the qualifying trigger, the easier it is to prove.
Dawes
“A reaction to circumstances of extreme gravity may be delayed. Different individuals in different situations do not react identically, nor respond immediately”
S54 (4)
D cannot use the defence if he acted out of a considered desire for revenge.
S54 (1) (b)
D’s loss of self control must come from a qualifying trigger.
S55 (3)
Fear trigger.
D’s loss of self control must come from D’s fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person.
Clinton (1)
It isn’t enough for D to fear violence. He must fear serious violence.
Ellis
Qualifying trigger is judged subjectively. So If D genuinely fears serious violence from V but D’s fear is unreasonable, D can still use the defence.
S55 (4)
Anger trigger.
D’s loss of self control must come from:
- Things said or done
- Of an extremely grave nature
- Gives D a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
Evans
Did not give D a justifiable sense of being wronged because she simply refused a cup of tea after an argument.
Zebedee
Did not give D a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged because a 94 year old man soiling himself isn’t extremely grave.
Hatter
The break up of a relationship will not normally constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character and entitle the aggrieved party to feel a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
S55 (5)
Combination of fear and anger triggers.
Bowyer
D knew V as they were both in a relationship with a Prostitute. D decided to burgle V. When V returned home D beat V to death. D raised the defence of loss of control claiming:
I) he was in fear of serious violence from V
II) V made hurtful comments about the girlfriend which constituted things said which were of an extremely grave nature and gave D a justifiable sense of being wronged.
Court rejected both of D’s arguments.
S55 (6) (c)
Sexual infidelity exclusion.
The fact that the thing said or done constituted sexual infidelity must be disregarded.
Clinton (2)
If only sexual infidelity is relied upon for qualifying trigger, it must be disregarded. However, it would b unrealistic to exclude it where it is integral to the facts of the case.
S55 (6) (a) and (b)
Incitement exclusion.
D cannot use the defence if he incites the fear or anger trigger in order to provide himself with an excuse for violence.
S54 (1) (c)
A person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint and in the circumstances of D might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.
AG for Jersey v Holley
Objective test with subjective elements based on the test developed by the privy council in the case above.
D’s Age
Normally, younger people tend to loose self control quicker.
D’s Sex
Generally, men are more short tempered than women.
S54 (3)
D’s circumstances.
Refers to all of D’s circumstances other than those whose relevance to D’s conduct is that they bear on D’s general capacity for tolerance or self restraint.
Old case of Mohammed
D’s beliefs are relevant to the circumstances as they would increase anger trigger. D’s short temper is not as it only lowers his tolerance.
Old case of Gregson
D’s unemployment, epilepsy and depression could be relevant circumstances as they increased the anger trigger.
Asmelash
D’s Drunkenness only reduced his capacity for tolerance and self restraint.
Diminished responsibility
A partial defence to murder.
S2 Homicide Act 1957
A person who kills/ is party to a killing is not to be convicted of murder if…
“D was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition as to substantially impair D’s ability to understand the nature of his conduct, or form a rational judgement, or exercise self control, and provides an explanation for D’s acts/ omissions in doing/ being party to the killing”
Burden and standard of proof
D has the burden of proving this defence on a balance of probabilities.
Abnormality of mental functioning.
D must be suffering from such an abnormality at the the time the killing took place.
Byrne
“A state of mind so different from that of an ordinary human being that a reasonable man would term it abnormal”
Recognised medical condition
Which can be either:
I) Physical: Diabetes, Brain Damage.
II) Mental: Schizophrenia, personality disorder
III) Both: Epilepsy, Battered wife syndrome
D needs expert evidence from two medically qualified doctors.
Martin
Ahluwalia
Seers
Boots
Brown
Edgington
Paranoia + Personality disorder
Battered wife syndrome
Depression
Post natal depression
Extreme stress + Adjustment disorder
Schizophrenia
Di Duca
Immediate effects of intoxication are not a RMC.
Wood
Alcohol dependency syndrome is a RMC. As is drug dependency syndrome.
Characteristics of ADS:
- Desire to drink
- Difficulty controlling when and how to drink
- Drinking to avoid withdrawal symptoms
- increase intolerance in alcohol
- neglecting other activities/ interests
Tandy
If persistent alcohol and drug abuse lead to brain damage, this a RMC.
The abnormality must substantially impact D’s ability to do one of three things.
D’s ability to do 1/3 things must be substantially impaired.
Golds
Trial judge does not have to explain the meaning of substantially as the meaning is obvious. If, however, judge does decided to give the jury an explanation, it should be that the RMC made a real difference to D’s conduct.
Three things
Understand the nature of his conduct e.g. Schizophrenia
Form a rational judgement e.g. Paranoia
Exercise self control e.g. Sexual psychopathy
Abnormality must provide an explanation to D’s conduct
S2 (1) (b) Homicide Act 1957
‘The abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for D’s conduct if it causes, or is a significant contributory factor in causing D to carry out the conduct’
I.e. Cause D to kill or is a Significant contributor factor to the killing.
Dietschmann
The AMF need not be the sole cause of the killing but must be a significant contributory factor.
