Voluntary manslaughter and it's partial defences Flashcards
Which partial defences make knock down the offence of murder into voluntary manslaughter?
Loss of control.
Diminished responsibility
Burden of proof for loss of control and diminished responsibility
Legal burden of disproving loss of control or diminished responsibility is with the prosecution. Prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the elements of the defence are not satisfied
Professor Ormerod’s definition of loss of control
Used in Jewell 2014
“a loss of the ability
R v Dowds 2012
Despite recognition from the world health organisation acute intoxication (recognised as a disease) the judge ruled voluntary acute intoxication is not enough to form diminished responsibility
- presence of a recognised medical condition is a ‘necessary, but not necessarily a sufficient condition to raise diminished responsibility as a defence
Facts: professor (D) and wife (V) were heavy binge drinkers, who could choose to not drink during the week but once D began drinking he could not stop, they got into an argument caused by her and killed her
R v Stewart 2009
Facts: D (homeless man with alcohol dependancy) in a fight, killed V
Golds 2017
Substantially impaired ability must be something beyond trivial. They may use the defence of diminished responsibility as long as it substantially effected D’s ability to do one or more of these things under s2(1)(b)
a. to understand the nature of D’s conduct
b. to form a rational judgement
c. to exercise self-control
Byrne 1960
OLD LAW: PROVOCATION - pre CJA 2009
Lord Parker described abnormality of mind (now abnormality of mental functioning) as
“a state of mind so different from that of a ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal”
Dietschmann 2003
Lord Hutton set precedent for how to direct juries should be directed where there is an abnormality of mind in addition to intoxication
Has the defendant satisfied you that, despite the drink, his mental abnormality substantially impaired his mental responsibility for the fatal acts?
If satisfied - defence successful - voluntary manslaughter
if not the defence is not available to him
Facts: D had depression, was an alcoholic and had drunk alcohol
- Difficult to separate drinking and being an alcoholic which can be taken into account
- Difficult for jury to understand how to not take into account drunkeness but look at affect of alcoholism and depression
Khan 2010
The question as to whether the defendant’s ability was substantially impaired is for the jury to decide
Suggested reform
Professors Mackay and Mitchell suggest making a merged defence out of loss of control and diminished responsibility for those at the time
a. under influence of extreme emotional disturbance and or
b. suffering from unsoundness of mind
