Voluntary manslaughter

Question 1

D.R, In statute:

Answer 1

Homicide Act s.2, substituted by the Coroners and Justice Act s. 52.

Question 2

3-stage test to raise DR:

Answer 2

1. Recognised medical condition;
2. Impaired ability;
3. Provides an explanation.

Question 3

Impaired ability, types:

Answer 3

1. Inability to understand the nature of his conduct;

2. Inability to form rational judgment.

Question 4

Provides an explanation, case:

Answer 4

R v Dietschmann [2003]
Facts: the defendant killed whilst heavily intoxicated and suffering from an adjustment disorder that amount to an abnormality of mind. Trial judge directed jury that D.R was available only if the defendant would have killed even if he had not taken a drink; only if the adjustment disorder was the sole cause would he be able to rely on the defence.
Principle: the HoL looked at the requirements and concluded there was no requirement that the abnormality of the mind was the sole cause of the killing.

Question 5

Loss of control in statute:

Answer 5

s. 54-55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 replaced s. 3 of Homicide Act 1957.

Question 6

Qualifying triggers for loss of control:

Answer 6

1. Fear of serious violence - s. 53(3).

2. Justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.

Question 7

Justifiable sense of being seriously wronged, facts and case:

Answer 7

Closer in scope to the old defence of provocation. Does not stipulate whats sorts of words or actions but requirement is that they are of an ‘extremely grave character’.

R v Hatter [2013] - break-up of a relationship will not normally suffice, to find otherwise would extend to all who had killed a partner following end of relationship.
‘Justifiable’ is indicative of an objective test.
May be deprived if jury disagree, as can be the case with social or cultural differences, as in Mohammed [2005] - defendant killed daughter after catching her having sex.