Voluntary Manslaughter Flashcards
What is voluntary manslaughter P15
The verdict where the defendant has a partial defence to murder when the unlawful killing was carried out when the defendant was suffering from diminished responsibility or loss of control.
What are special defences W9P2
The defendant in a murder case may raise defences including self defence and insanity, this would make them not guilty.
However, loss of control and diminished responsibility can only be used in murder cases. If successful they will reduce the charge from murder to voluntary manslaughter.
What act sets out loss of control and what are the stages W9P2
This was set out in s.54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
- The defendant must loss control.
- The loss of control must be the result of a fear of serious violence against self or another or a ‘qualifying trigger’
- A qualifying trigger is ‘things said or done of a sufficiently grave (serious) nature that leave the defendant with a justifiable sense of being wronged
- Justifiable means that someone of the same age, sex or characteristics would have behaved the same in the circumstances
- Finally this ‘trigger’ must provide a reason for the killing
The defendant must have lost control W9P2
In the case R v Ahluwalia - The appellant poured petrol and caustic soda on to her sleeping husband and then set fire to him. He died six days later from his injuries. The couple had an arranged marriage and the husband had been violent and abusive throughout the marriage. He was also having an affair. On the night of the killing he had threatened to hit her with an iron and told her that he would beat her the next day if she did not provide him with money.
She failed to argue the special defence of provocation (the law before LOC) because of the 2 hour time lapse.
A perceived threat or a qualifying trigger W9P2
Killing in response to a perceived threat helps people who kill in self defence but may have gone too far in doing so.
A qualifying trigger is a thing said or done of a sufficiently grave nature and that leaves the defendant with the justifiable sense of being wronged. This was set out in S.55 of the act.
Case showing that something is sufficiently grave W9P2
In R V Hatter 2013 Mark Hatter had a relationship with Dawn Blackhouse. The relationship later called and she started seeing another man although she never told Hatter it was over.
He went to her house at night and climbed through an upstairs window. He claimed he had taken the knife to lift the carpets and had accidentally stabbed her in the chest and the wrist when he spun around holding the knife. He also stabbed himself in the chest but the jury rejected his claim that it was an accident.
Held: he had not lost control, the circumstances were not extremely grave nor did he have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
It was also said that the break up of a relationship will not normally entitle the aggrieved party to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
Case that adds confusion to the previous card VM sheet
In R V Clinton 2012, D and his wife had been suffering from problems I their marriage and both were receiving medication for depression. During a separation she revealed that she had been having an affair; that she no longer wanted their children and she also mocked him for looking at suicide websites. He beat her and strangled her with a belt.
The court held that sexual infidelity can not be relied upon on its own as a qualifying trigger, but its existence is relevant where there are other qualifying triggers. It was order for there to a retrial.
This case is also on the PowerPoint and in the revision guide.
Stage 4 W9P2
Justifiable sense of being wronged.
In R V Camplin (1978), Camplin was a 15 year old boy, he killed a middle aged man by hitting him over the head with a chapati pan. He raised the defence of provocation, saying that the deceased had raped him and then laughed at him at which point he lost his control and hit him.
He was found guilty but successfully appealed. The appeal court said that the jury should be allowed to consider the age of the defendant.
Stage 5 W9P2
The trigger provides a reason for the killing.
This is causation: factual causation (but for) and legal causation (de minimis).
The defence of LOC will not apply if the court thinks the killing was an act of revenge (Hatter).
What is diminished responsibility P16
A partial defence to a charge of murder which reduces the charge to one of voluntary manslaughter under S.2 of the Homicide Act 1957 as amended by S.52.
What act is Diminished Responsibility W9P2
S.52 of the Coroners & Justice Act 2009.
What are the requirements for Diminished Responsibility W9P2
The defendant must be suffering from a recognised medical condition that results in an abnormality of mental function.
This condition must impair their ability to:
a) form a rational judgement, or
b) exercise self control, or
c) understand what it is that they are doing
Finally this condition must provide a reason for the killing
What is a recognised medical condition W9P2 and P16
A state of mind that is so different from that of an ordinary person that a reasonable man would term it abnormal.
R V Byrne, the defendant was a sexual psychopath who strangled a young women and mutilated her body. The evidence that was because of his mental condition he was unable to control his perverted desires. He was convicted of murder, but COA substituted a conviction of manslaughter.
For diminished responsibility who decides it and who has the burden of proof W9P2
This is a question for the jury to decide once they have heard expert medical witnesses. Even if a doctor says the defendant is suffering from a medical condition the jury can still disallow the defence – this happened in Peter Sutcliffe the Yorkshire Ripper case
The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove the condition
What is abnormality of mental function W9P2
The defendant’s ability to do one of the following is impaired, form a rational judgement (R V Ahluwalia), exercise self control (R V Martin) or understand what they are doing or more precisely the consequences of their actions.
