Voluntary Manslaughter - Loss of Control

Question 1

Introduce voluntary manslaughter + loss of control.

Answer 1

• Partial defence to murder.
• Homicide Act1957: voluntary manslaughter introduced.
• D has AR + MR for murder, but level of fault is lower as there’s a reason for unlawful killing.
• Maximum sentence - life imprisonment.
• S.54 (1) Coroners + Justice Act 2009: LoC replaced defence of provocation.
• 3 points needing to be satisfied to plead LoC.

Question 2

Explain the first element of loss of control, D killed as a result of a loss of self-control.

Answer 2

• R v Jewell: must be a total loss of self-control - partial loss not sufficient.
• S.54 (2) CJA: LoC need not be sudden - allows time delay but specific time hasn’t been stated.
• R v Ahluwalia: 2 hour delay + would now work - longer delay, less likely court will accept it.

Question 3

Explain the second element of loss of control, loss of self-control must be caused by a recognised qualifying trigger.

Answer 3

• S.55 CJA: has to be ‘qualifying trigger’ for LoC to become defence.
  *Can be either:
  1) S.55 (3): D fears serious violence from V (subjective - fear need not be rational)
  2) S.55 (4): things said or done (or both) (objective test) which
  a) were of extremely grave character
  b) caused D to have justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
• Zebedee: confirmed test - very high threshold for circumstances where this is allowed.

Excluded Matters:
Sexual Infidelity:
* S.55 (6) (c): anything said / done in connection with sexual infidelity is to be disregarded - can never be qualifying trigger.
* Clinton: sexual infidelity alone can’t amount to qualifying trigger but doesn’t have to be completely disregarded if it was integral to + formed part of other qualifying triggers.
* Jersey v Holley: confirmed this.
Considered Desire For Revenge:
* S.54 (4): defence not allowed if D acted in ‘considered desire for revenge’.
* Ibrams + Gregory: confirmed this.

Question 4

Explain the third element of loss of control, person of same age + sex would’ve reacted in same way in same situation.

Answer 4

• Similar to old law of provocation - compare to old standard of self control.
• R v Van Dongen: 2 questions must be satisfied
  *1) Would person of same age + sex, with normal degree of tolerance + self-restraint, + in same circumstances as D have lost control.
• Camplin: held sex + age should be considered in assessing power of self-control expected.
• Mohammed: hot temper not a circumstance
• R v Asmelash: voluntary intoxication - ignore it.
• R v Rejmanski: general mental illnesses should be considered, but not if reduces capacity for tolerance + self-restraint.
  2) Would they have reacted in same way.