Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

a2 law > Voluntary Manslaughter > Flashcards

Voluntary Manslaughter Flashcards

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

What is voluntary MS?

A

AR + MR for murder exist
But = mitigating circumstances which allow a partial defence
Avoids mandatory life sentence

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

Can a D be charged with MS?

A

No

Charged with murder, plead defence at trial

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

What are the 2 partial defences under VMS?

A
  1. Loss co control

2. Diminished responsibility

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

Where the 2 defences originally created?

A

Homicide Act 1957 (no longer refer to this)
There was:
- Provocation (being provoked led to death)
- Diminished responsibility (relating to D’s mental health)

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

Why was the partial defence of provocation replaced?

A

Recommendations for reform by the Law Commission in their report ‘Murder, MS and Infanticide 2006
Replaced with partial defence of Loss of Control
Under Coroners and Justice Act 2009

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

Where can the amended partial defences be found now?

What does the Act provide?

A

Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Provides explanatory notes designed to help in interpreting + applying the leg

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

Under s54 (1) CJA 2009 a D is not convicted of murder if…

3 - LOC

A
  1. D’s acts/omissions resulted from LOC
  2. LOC had qualifying trigger
  3. Person of D’s sex, age, normal degree of tolerance + self-restraint in the same circumstances, might have reacted a similar/same way
    OBJECTIVE TEST, subj. elements (manipulate reasonable man)

ALL 3 PRAS MUST BE PROVEN

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

What is the 1st stage in proving the defence of LOC?

A

s54(2) - LOC need not to be sudden
(Duffy, old law, ‘sudden + temporary’)
Harder to prove over time

s54(4) - excluded a D who has acted in revenge

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

What does the judge and the jury decide in relation to LOC?

A

Judge decides if there = sufficient evidence to leave the defence to the jury
Jury decide if the killing has resulted form a LOC

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

What is the 2nd stage in proving the defence of LOC?

A

LOC had a qualifying trigger (s55)

  • fear of serious violence from V against D/ other ID person
  • things said/done of extremely grave character, caused D to have justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
  • COMBO OF BOTH
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What section of the CJA 2009 explains the meaning of a qualifying trigger?

A

s55:

  • fear of serious harm form V against D/another ID person
  • things said/done of an extremely grave character that caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
  • Combo of both
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What does s55 (3) state?
(1st qualifying trigger)

LOC

A

D lost control; genuine fear of serious violence from V against D/ another ID person
Fear doesn’t have to be reasonable
Judged SUBJECTIVELY
Ward (2012), D killed V after V attacked brother
Can’t be fear of future violence

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

What does s55 (4) state?
(2nd qualifying trigger)

LOC

A

LOC due to things said/done/both
Of extremely grave character
Causing D experience justifiable sense of feeling seriously wronged

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

What case gave the 1st interpretation of the meaning ‘LOC’ where there was a fear of serious violence?
Describe the case

A

R v Dawes (2013)
D found wife asleep with V on sofa (fully dresses)
D fatally stabbed V in neck
Was there a fear of violence form the V??
Held: no, V actually felt fear
Judged OBJECTIVELY BY JURY
Cts also rejected plea os self-defence

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

What did the CA say in the R v Dawes (2013) didn’t cross over into the threshold of LOC?

A

Normal irritation or even serious anger

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

What is the CJA 2009 unclear of in relation to LOC?

A

If the test = purely objective

OR whether the D will be judged against a person sharing characteristics of the D (subjective)

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

When does s55 (6) (a) (b) exclude a trigger of LOC?

A

If it was self-induced by the D in the first place

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

What does s55 (6) (c) exclude as a trigger of LOC?

What case illustrates this?

A

Sexual infidelity

R v Clinton (2012)

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

R v Clinton (2012)

(FB) - LOC

A

D killed wife after discovering affair on FB
Trial judge refused to let jury consider LOC due to exclusion of sexual infidelity
CA ordered retrial (judge’s misdirection)
At retail D pleaded G
CA: although = excluded as trigger, may still be relevant to the circumstances in which the D lost control

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What was held but he CA in R v Clinton (2012)?

A

Although sexual infidelity is excluded as a qualifying trigger
May still be relevant to the circumstances the D lost control

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

What is the 3rd stage in proving the defence of LOC?

A

Standard control
Comparing D with ordinary person
OBJECTIVE TEST

22
Q

What circumstances are relevant in the 3rd stage of proving LOC?

A

ALL circumstances
EXCEPT D’s general capacity for tolerance + self-restraint
(history of abuse can be taken into account)

23
Q

what was held by the CA in the case R v Asmelash (2013)

A

LOC had to be taken into account WITHOUT reference to D’s VOLUNTARY intoxication
(drunkenness = irrelevant)
If sober person had reacted in same way, D couldn’t be deprived of defence

24
Q

Mohammed (2005) CA

(boy in bedroom) LOC

A

D had reputation for being strict, short-tempered
Returned from mosque, discovered daughter entertaining y. man in bedroom
D locked door, went to bedroom to get knife, returned
Y. man escaped through window
D followed daughter downstairs, stabbed her to death (least 19 times)
Convicted of murder
CA, deicide it D’s bad temper = relevant, ruled it wasn’t

25
Q

What did Lord Justice Scott Baker declare in the case of Mohammed (2005) CA?

A

D’s violence + short-temper are not relevant to how the reasonable man would’ve reacted; reasonable man = fixed other than a variable creature

26
Q

What are evaluation 6 points of the defence of LOC?

A
  1. Defence = wider (replaced sudden + temporary), helps women in violent R.ships
    (R v Ahluwalia 1993)
  2. Specifically denies someone who acted in revenge (public policy)
  3. Prove someone attacked; fear?
  4. D’s repose to trigger = judges objectively (characteristics affecting D’s capacity of self-control = excluded)
  5. No certainty that problems of provocation have been resolved (see with future cases)
  6. History of violence = taken into account (helps DA V’s)
27
Q

Where was diminished responsibility originally created?

A

s2 Homicide Act 1957 due to the narrow definition of insanity
Now found in 252 CJA 2009

28
Q

What did the Law Commissions report of M, MS and Infanticide 2006 say about the defence of DR?

A

‘Badly out of date’
Didn’t reflect a modern psychiatric approach
New streamlined definition of defence
Now encourages defence to be grounded in medical diagnosis
(Accommodates for future developments)

29
Q

What did the old DR defence refer to a D suffering from?

What is it now?

A

Was: ‘abnormality of the mind’
Now: ‘abnormality of mental functioning’

Been changed by s52 CJA 2009

30
Q

What does s52 CJA 2009 state about DR?

A

Person is NOT convicted of M if suffering from abnormality of mental functioning which:

  • arose from recognised med. condition
  • substantially impaired D’s ability understand nature of act/ form rational judgement/ exercise self-control
  • provides explanation for D’s acts/omissions in killing
31
Q

What is the test for ‘abnormality of mental functioning’ in DR?
What case does this come from?

A

Reasonable man test (same under old law)

Given in R v Byrne (1960)

32
Q

R v Byrne (1960)

DR

A

Sexual psycho
Suffered from perverted sexual desires
Whilst under influence, strangely girl, mutilated body
Conviction reduced to MS on appeal
Ct: abnormality of mental state meant ‘state of mind so different from ordinary person that reasonable man would call it abnormal’
OBJECTIVE TEST

33
Q

What was ‘abnormality if mind’ held to mean in the case of R v Byrne?

DR

A

State of mind so different from that of an ordinary person that the reasonable man would term it to be abnormal
OBJECTIVE TEST

34
Q

The abnormality of mental functioning must have arisen from a recognised condition by medical professionals.
What did this aim to do?

A

Modernise the defence
Bring it in line with medical understanding of mental illness
D only has defence is suffering from condition at time of killing

35
Q

Give examples of conditions that would’ve been accepted under the old definition of DR
Give cases that go with them

A

Covers wide range of conditions:

  1. Battered women syndrome (R v Ahluwalia)
  2. Paranoid personality disorder (R v Martin 2002)
  3. Psychopathy (R v Byrne)
  4. Depression (R v Gittens)
36
Q

R v Osbourne (2010)

DR

A

D had been smoking cannabis
Saw V walking past, fight broke out
V punched D in face (self defence) + left
A armed with plank of wood chased after D, hit V on head from behind
Convicted, murder
Appeal, argued ADHD made him behave impulsively + impaired judgement
CA: possible for ADHD to support defence BUT in case conviction upheld; more likely result of drugs and anger

37
Q

What was said by the CA in R v Osbourne about the use of DR?

A

ADHD could support the defence

BUT in this case = more likely that D’s smoking drugs + anger explained his conduct

38
Q

What was the term ‘substantially impaired’ held to mean in the case of R v Lloyd?

DR

A

More than trivial but less than total

39
Q

R v Lloyd (1967)

DR

A

D charged with murder of wife, strangled her
Pleaded DR under s2 Homicide Act 1957
According to medical evidence D = suffering from disease of abnormality
Doctors: his mental responsibility was impaired to some extent + that it was not minimal
CA: substantially impaired meant ‘more that trivial but less than total impairment’

40
Q

What case confirms the definition of ‘substantial impairment’ set in Lloyd?

A

R v Gold (2014)

41
Q

What must the abnormality in mental functioning provide?

DR

A

Explanation for the D’s involvement in the killing of the V
Abnormality should cause/ be significant contributory factor in causing D to kill
If abnormality made no difference, defence unavailable (Osbourne)

42
Q

What is unclear in the defence of DR?

A

Whether the courts will apply old law (looking at relevance of drugs/ alcohol) under the new definition

43
Q

R v Fenton (1975)

DR

A

D consumed large quantity of drink
Drew revolver, killed police officer
Drove police car to club, shot + killed 3 more people
Held that mental abnormality caused by drink/drug wasn’t usually sufficient for DR plea
BUT this case Ct said: 1 of the 4 things impairing his ability = drink, still evidence (ignoring this factor) that he had an abnormality of the mind

44
Q

What happens when D is intoxicated but has pre-existing abnormality of the mind?
What case illustrates this?

A

R v Gittens
D suffered from depression, consumed lot of drink + anti-depression pills, killed wife + step-daughter
Jury were told to IGNORE the effects of alcohol + see if there was still an abnormality
There was so convicted of MS

45
Q

What must the voluntary consumption of drugs/ alcohol be?

What case shows this?

A

IGNORED

R v Egan (1992)

46
Q

What was held by the HL in the case of Dietschmann?

A

Jury should ask had the D had been sober, would he still be suffering form a disease of the mind

47
Q

What 2 other exceptions can a D plead DR regarding intoxication?

A
  1. If D’s long term drug/alcohol abuse has lead to brain damage/ psychosis
  2. If drug addiction amounts to a disease
    BUT must prove that the urge to drink was so overwhelming that you couldn’t control It (Tandy)
48
Q

What must the jury consider when dealing with a case of an alcoholic killer?

A

Whether D’s craving for alcohol was(n’t) irresistible
Jury should ask if alcohol dependency (if recognised med condition) led to an abnormality of mental functioning which caused/ significantly contributed to D’s inability to understand the nature of his conduct (Wood)

49
Q

What are the 3 strengths of the reform of the DR defence?

A
  1. New defence takes account of modern medical knowledge (flexible)
  2. When D raises DR plea, prosecution can argue insanity and find them NG over all
  3. CJA 2009 didn’t define substantially but use meaning ‘substantially impaired’ given in Lloyd as guidelines
50
Q

What is a weakness of the reform of the DR defence?

A

Should the jury decide if a D was suffering from an abnormality of the mind at the time of the killing?
Surely a judge/ doctor/ psychiatrist should decide this

a2 law (18 decks)

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