Voluntary Manslaughter

Question 1

What are the two partial defences

Answer 1

Diminished Responsibility

Loss Of Control

Question 2

Breakdown of DM

Answer 2

• D must be suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning
• Abnormality arose form a recognised medical condition
• It must substantially impair…
• It must provide an explanation for the D’s behaviour

Question 3

Abnormality of mental functioning

Answer 3

Where the D’s mental functioning is so different of that of an ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it as being abnormal

Question 4

Abnormality arose from a recognised medical condition

Answer 4

Covers both psychological and physical conditions
Medical evidence given in trial
Intoxication does not apply Dowds Di-Duca

Question 5

Psychological conditions

Answer 5

Psychosis
Paranoia
Depression - Martin
Battered Womens Syndrome - Ahluwalia, Thornton

Question 6

Physical conditions

Answer 6

Epilepsy
Sleep disorders
Diabetes

Question 7

It must substantially impair…

Answer 7

• D’s ability to understand the nature if his conduct
• D’s ability to exercise self control
• D’s ability to form a rational judgement

Substantial does not mean total but more than trivial - Lloyd

Question 8

D’s ability to understand the nature of his conduct

Answer 8

Where D did not know what he was doing due to their automatic state ie. mental age

Question 9

D’s ability to form a rational judgement

Answer 9

Those suffering from schizophrenia or paranoia may suffer from this. D doesn’t think things through properly, he just does it.

Question 10

D’s ability to form self control

Answer 10

Where D can not stop themselves from what they are doing.

Question 11

Must provide an explanation for D’s conduct

Answer 11

An explanation must be provided that the abnormality causes or was at least significant contributing factor to the cause of the D carrying out the act.
S1B Homicide Act 1957

Question 12

Breakdown of LOC

Answer 12

• D must have lost self control
• Must have been caused by a Qualifying Trigger
• Excluding matters
• Standard of self control
• Circumstances of the D

Question 13

Must have lost self control

Answer 13

This does not mean sudden, so the D does not need to snap.

Explained in s54(2) CJA 2009 and in Dawes

Question 14

Qualifying triggers

Answer 14

-Fear
-Anger
(One will be relevant)

Question 15

Fear trigger

Answer 15

Where the D must be in fear of SERIOUS violence from the victim. It can be aimed at the victim or another identified person. Explained in s55(1) CJA 2009
Relevant cases: Ward. Lodge. Dawes

Question 16

Anger Trigger

Answer 16

Where there are things said or done to the D which must be:
-Of an extremely grave character
-And cause the D to have a justifiable sense of being wronged
Explained in s55(4) CJA 2009

Question 17

Of an extremely grave character

Answer 17

Cumulative effect is relevant here -Dawes

Breakdown of a relationship is not acceptable- Hatter

Question 18

Justifiable sense of being wronged

Answer 18

Where the D believed that his actions were acceptable to deal with these things said or done
- Muhammad

Question 19

Excluding matters

Answer 19

Sexual infidelity - s55(6) CJA 2009

Considered desire for revenge - s54(4) CJA 2009

Question 20

Sexual infidelity

Answer 20

There is no legal definition for sexual infidelity.
For the jury to decide
Case of Clinton states it can be considered as part of the picture

Question 21

Considered desire for revenge

Answer 21

If the D has even an incline of a considered desire for revenge then the defence will fail

Question 22

Standard of self control

Answer 22

The D must reach the same standard if self control of that of a person of the same age an sex. They must have the same degree of tolerance of that of a reasonable person.
- Gregson

Question 23

Circumstances of the D

Answer 23

A history of the following can be considered here:
Abuse - Ahluwalia, Thornton, hill 
Depression - Martin
Unemployment - Gregson
Sexual infidelity - Clinton 

The jury must then consider whether a normal person would have acted in the same way considering all these circumstances. If not then the defence will fail.