Voluntary Manslaughter Cases

Question 1

Jewell

Answer 1

The loss of self control does not have to be sudden CJA s54 (2) 2009

Question 2

Dawes

Answer 2

CoA made it clear that cumulative provocation would be taken into account - will support the case for the defence

Question 3

Clinton

Answer 3

Sexual infidelity did not have to be completely disregarded, can be considered if it was integral and formed an essential part of the context

Question 4

Ibrams and Gregory (2 marks)

Answer 4

Revenge killing is no defence as there is no sudden loss of control
CJA s55 (6)

Question 5

Byrne (4 marks)
2 PoL

Answer 5

• ‘a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal’
• whether the impairment was substantial was one for the jury to decide

Question 6

Golds (2 marks)

Answer 6

If impairment only has a modest impact then it is not substantial, substantial means “significant or appreciable” or ‘real’

Question 7

Dowds

Answer 7

Intoxication alone cannot support a defence of diminished responsibility

Question 8

Dietschmann (2 marks)

Answer 8

Pre-existing abnormality of mental functioning
If D had an abnormality of mind when sober they can use the defence of diminished responsibility

Question 9

Stewart

Answer 9

Intoxication due to addiction/dependency