VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER - FATAL OFFENCE (paper 1)

Question 1

Background of voluntary manslaughter

Answer 1

• 2 special defences only available for situations when D has committed a murder
• Diminished responsibility or Loss of control
• only partial defences
• judge has full range of sentencing options

Question 2

diminished responsibility - definition

Answer 2

• DR created as a partial defence to murder in S2 of the homicide act
• S52 of the coroners and justice act amended S2 and sets out the elements required

Question 3

DR - element 1 - Abnormality of mental functioning

Answer 3

• S52(1) not convicted of murder if suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning
• D must prove that they were suffering from an AMF
• to prove same approach used in Byrne saying and abnormality of the mind was a “state of mind so different from ordinary human being that the reasonable person would term is abnormal”

Question 4

DR - element 2 - arose from a recognised medical condition

Answer 4

• 2(1)(a) arose from a medical condition
• will follow the world health organisation of recognised conditions
• can be physical, psychological and/or psychiatric condition
• D will need medical reports

Question 5

DR - element 3 - substantially impaired D’s ability to do one or more of 3 things

Answer 5

• S52 2(1)(b) - substantially impaired D’s ability to do one or more of the things mentioned in subsection (1)(A)
• (1) to understand the nature of D’s conduct
• (2) to form a rational judgment
• (3) to exercise self-control

Question 6

DR - element 4 - the AMF caused by a RMC must provide an explanation for D’s conduct

Answer 6

• must be a causal link between the AMF and D’s conduct
• doesn’t have to be only cause
• seems it must make a substantial contribution towards the killing

Question 7

Osbourne (2010)

Answer 7

• D had been smoking cannabis but also had ADHD
• he hit youth over head with wood and he died
• he claimed that it was his ADHD that made him misjudge
• CA held that ADHD can impair judgement but that it was his anger & the cannabis that made him kill

Question 8

Zebedee (2011)

Answer 8

• D killed father who had Alzheimer’s and soiled himself
• said snapped because of father whistling incessantly and that he had adjustment disorder due to earlier abuse from father
• both claims rejected
• decision on causal link is left to jury

Question 9

Diminished responsibility & intoxication

Answer 9

• law comes from cases
• can’t rely on DR is solely killed from voluntary intoxication
• can’t rely on DR if binge drinking which is recognized as medical condition by WHO
• if D is suffering from AMF and voluntary intoxicated it is up to jury to decide
• if suffering from alcohol dependency syndrome they will be able to rely on DR of impaired by ADS

Question 10

procedure for DR

Answer 10

• new act left the burden of proof on D which can be argued to go against the right to a fair trial and seems unjust
• defendant will have to produce medical evidence
• jury decides availability of DR
• judge has full sentencing options because of S2(3) homicide act 1957

Question 11

Loss of control - definition

Answer 11

• partial defence
• homicide act 1957
• LOC was created by the coroners and justice act 2009

Question 12

case of Dowds (2012) (DR & intoxication)

Answer 12

• D and G binge drank vodka before killing
• cannot rely on DR if binge drinking

Question 13

case of Deichmann (DR & intoxication)

Answer 13

• D lost aunt and was depressed
• killed someone who disrespected her memory
• if D is suffering AMF and voluntary intoxicated it is left up to jury to decide

Question 14

LOC - element 1

Answer 14

• S54(1)(a) killing must be a result og LOC
• S54(2) LOC doesn’t need to be sudden LOC after years of abuse (Ahluwalia) aew allowed the defence
• however the longer the time delay between LOC & the killing will have an effect & it will be up to jury to decide if there was a cooling off period

Question 15

LOC - element 2 - caused by one of the triggers recognised in S55 (1)

Answer 15

• (1) fear of serious violence towards self (D) or another person (Martin)
• (2) things said or done (or both) done by victim which (a) were grave in character and (b) caused D to have justifable sense of being wronged
• in case of Zebedee things said/done weren’t considered and they weren’t serious enough

Question 16

LOC - element 3

Answer 16

• would an ordinary person of D’s age and genger, with a normal degree of self-restraint and tolerance in D’s circumstance have acted in a similar way?
• 3 part test known as ‘standard of control test’
• largely objective test to consider whether a reasonable person of D’s age and gender will have reacted the same
• test is of someone with a normal degree of self-restarit & tolerance, no other characteristics are considered