Voluntary Manslaughter: LOC and Diminished responsibility Flashcards
Scenario intro
What is Loss of control?
Loss of control is a special and partial defence to murder, where the D can show he lacked mens rea due to loss of control.
If successful, murder charge is dropped to manslaughter,this is why it is also a partial defence.
What does LOC replace, and where is it now set out?
LOC replaces the former defence of provocation, Loss of control is set out in s.54 of coroners and justice act 2009.
What are the 3 elements necessary to pleading LOC?
- D must have lost self control
- There must be a qualifying trigger
- A person of the same sex and age would have reacted in the same way as the D in the same circumstances
Outline Element (1): Loss of self control
D must prove they had lost self control, this does not have to be a sudden reaction
R v Duffy (1949) - There must be no cooling or planning time
R v Alhuwalia (1992) - D was a victim of prolonged abuse, one day she had snapped and set the bedroom of her husband on fire, with him in it resulting in his death.
Outline element (2): Qualifying triggers
There are 2 main qualifying triggers which are outline in Section 55 of the Coroners and justice Act 2009.
- D’s fear of serious violence from the V against the D
- A thing or things done or said which -
(a) Constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character AND
(b) Caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
Qualifying triggers
Outline (1) Fear of violence.
The old law on provocation did not allow a defence where D lost control through fear of violence, so this is a wider defence.
Fear of serious violence has been added to deal with cases where there has been excessive self defence.
- R v Martin
Battered wives such as Alhuwalia today may also be able to use this as a qualifying trigger.
Qualifying triggers
Outline (2): Things said or done
(a) They were of extremely grave character AND
(b) They caused D to have a jusifiable sense of being seriously wronged
These are decided objectively as stated in R v Hatter. This case also said the breakdown of relationships will not normally be considered as a justifiable sense of being wronged.
R v Doughty 1986 - In this case the babies cries could be considered things done, however they did not make the D feel he had been wronged.
Qualifying triggers
What cannot be a qualifying trigger?
- Sexual infidelity can never be a qualifying trigger by virtue of S.54(3)
- R v Clinton (2012): where there has been a cumalatative loss of control, sexual infidelity may be considered. Wife had taunted the man about not being able to committ suicide etc. - If D acted in a desire for revenge then by virtue of S.54(4), this cannot be a qualifying trigger.
- R v Ibrams and Gregory (1981)
Outline element (3): Would someone the same age and sex as D react in a similar way
The 2009 Act requires that whichever qualifying trigger is relied on, it is necessary for D to show that:
Someone of the D’s sex and age with a normal degree of tolerence and self restraint woudl react in a similar way to D.
Similar to the old common law test :
-DPP v Camplin (1978)
Other illnesses may be taken into account:
-R v Gregson
Element 3
What will happen if the jury decide that a normal person may not have reacted in similar way?
The defence will fail if the jury consider that a normal person might have lost control but would not have reacted in the same way.
As seen in the case of, R v Van Dongen (2005)
