voluntary manslaughter Flashcards
what are the 3 special defences to a murder charge
where D kills v due to malice aforethought but the killing occurs due to:
- loss of control
- diminished responsibility
- suicide pact
why are the defences special
they only apply to a murder charge
why are the defences partial
if successful the conviction is for voluntary manslaughter not murder- merely reduce liability
what sentence does voluntary manslaughter carry
a discretionary life sentence
what did loss of control replace
the previous defence of provocation
where is the law set out for loss of control
s54 coroners and justice act 2009
what 3 things are required for loss of control
- d must have lost self control and this must’ve caused the killing
- loss of self control had a qualifying trigger
- person of ds sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint and in circumstances of d might have reacted in a similar way
who is the burden on when d raises the defence
prosecution to disprove beyond reasonable doubt
what must there be? and not just
must be a loss of control, not just self restraint- cocker
cocker
- CA upheld conviction for murder because partial defence of provocation failed
- hadn’t lost self control only self restraint
when can the loss of self control occur
it doesn’t have to immediately follow the qualifying trigger- can be a delay between the qualifying trigger and the killing
when is the defence not available
if d acted in a considered desire for revenge- s54
which sections sets out that ds loss of control must have a qualifying trigger
55
what can qualifying triggers be
- ds fear of seriously violence from d against v or another identified person
- things done and/or said which were extremely grave and caused d to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
ds fear of serious violence case
ward
ward
d did not fear serious violence personally but this qualifying trigger nevertheless applied because he feared that v would use serious violence on his brother
‘extremely grave’ case
zebedee
zebedee
CA upheld murder conviction. although there were things done, they were not extremely grave nor did they give d a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
what are certain triggers excluded by
coroners and justice act
what certain triggers are excluded
- things done or said which amount to sexual infidelity
- situations where d has encouraged either the dear of violence/ thing done or said, in order to have excuse to use violence
when can sexual infidelity kind of be a qualifying trigger
can be used to explain the context of other potential qualifying triggers- clinton
clinton
- convicted of murder, appealed on basis that defence of loss of control should have been left to jury
- CA agreed as sexual infidelity should have been used to explain context of other things done/said
- conviction quashed and a retrial ordered
d encouraging violence or thing done or said case
dawes
circumstances that may be taken into account in deciding whether a person of normal self restraint might have reacted in a similar way
- unemployment
- effects of sexual infidelity- Clinton
- history of being sexually abused
- severe problem with alcohol (D) and was mercifully taunted about condition
which circumstances are to be disregarded when deciding whether a qualifying trigger is valid
circumstances which only relate to ds general capacity to exercise tolerance and self restraint- s54
things that made d lose control more easily are ignored- asmelash
4 examples of circumstances that can be taken into account in deciding whether a person of normal self restraint might have reacted in a similar way
- unemployment
- effects of sexual infidelity
- history of being sexually abused
- alcohol/drug problem and being teased about it
what was diminished responsibility introduced by
the homicide act 1957
in which section is the law on diminished responsibility set out in
s2(1)HOMICIDE ACT 1957
under which act was the law on diminished responsibility amended
coroners and justice act 2009
what kind of defence is diminished responsibility
special and partial
who is the burden of proof on for dim res
d to prove on balance of probabilities
what must d have suffered from for diminished responsibility
an abnormality of mental functioning- BYRNE
what must ds abnormality of mental functioning by caused by dim res
a recognised medical condition
BYRNE
court said abnormality of mind was a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal
which conditions does ‘recognised medical condition’ for diminished responsibility cover
- psychological conditions
- physical conditions which affect mental functioning (eg epilepsy, diabetes)
what must be given at trial to prove ds recognised medical condition for diminished responsibility
medical evidence
what must ds abnormality of mental functioning have substantially impaired ds ability to do dim res
- understand nature of conduct or
- form a rational judgement or
- exercise self control
LLOYD
impairment need not be total but must be more than trivial- dim res
what must d finally prove for dim res
his abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for his conduct in doing or being a party to the killing
what does in mean that there must be a causal connection between ds abnormality of mental functioning and the killing under CAJA for dim res
abnormality of mental functioning need not be the only factor which caused d to do/be involved in the killing- must be a significant factor
which is not capable alone of establishing the defence of diminished responsibility
voluntary intoxication- DOWDS
DOWDS
-CA upheld conviction for murder on basis that voluntary acute intoxication is not capable of establishing diminished responsibility
DEITSCHMANN
- H/L quashed murder conviction and substituted conviction for voluntary manslaughter
- abnormality didn’t have to be only cause of killing but d had to show despite drink he had sufficient abnormality of mind to impair his respon. for killing
