Voluntary Manslaughter - Loss of Control Flashcards
State which Act introduced the Partial Defence of Loss of Control
S.54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
State the 3 things which must be proven by the Defence, in order to plead Loss of Control.
- D must demonstrate they killed as a result of a loss of self-control
- Loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger
- ‘Normal’ Person of same age + sex as D, with an ordinary degree of tolerance + in same circumstances as D, would’ve acted in same way
Explain the point: D killed as a result of a loss of self-control.
- Matter for Jury to decide + has to be a total loss of self-control- partial loss not sufficient
Case: R v Jewell (2014), shows D killed due to loss of self-control - Greater time period between trigger + killing, less likely defence made available/jury will believe i resulted from loss of control
- Under old law of provocation (LOC replaced it), some couldn’t use this partial defence as previously had to be sudden, shown in case: R v Ahluwalia (1992)
Explain the point: Loss of self-control must’ve been caused by a recognised qualifying trigger.
- Must be ‘qualifying trigger’ for LOC to become defence- set out in S.55 Coroners + Justice Act 2009
2 Qualifying Triggers are:
1) D fears serious violence from V
2) Things done or said (or both) - constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character
- caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
Explain the Qualifying Trigger: D’s fear of serious violence from V.
- D needs to show he lost control as of a genuine fear of serious violence + doesn’t matter if fear may’ r been unreasonable
Case: R v Dawes (2013), shows D has incited (started) violence in order to have excuse to use force- can’t use qualifying trigger - Further supported through Case: Zebedee (2012)
Explain the Qualifying Trigger: Things done or said (or both).
2 points have to be shown if D is relying on things said/done as a qualifying trigger:
1) Were of an extremely grave character
2) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
State the 2 excluded matters that cannot be used as a Qualifying Trigger
- Sexual Infidelity
- Considered desire for revenge
Explain how Sexual Infidelity is an Excluded Matter (cannot be used as a Qualifying Trigger).
Coroners and Justice Act S.55 (6) (c) states that anything said/done in connection with sexual infidelity is to be disregarded + can never be a qualifying trigger
- Case: Clinton (2012), shows Sexual Infedility alone can’t amount to be a qualifying trigger for LOC
- Furthermore, supported through case: AG for Jersey v Holley (2005)
Explain how a Considered Desire for Revenge is an Excluded Matter (cannot be used as a Qualifying Trigger).
- Under S.54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 defence not allowed if D acted in a ‘considered desire for revenge’
- If there was time for D to consider revenge there couldn’t be LOC as it has to be sudden, partial defence unavailable. Shown through case: Ibrams and Gregory (1981)
Explain the point: ‘Normal’ Person of same age + sex would’ve reacted in same way in the same situation.
- Person of D’s age + sex, with a normal degree of tolerance + self-control in circumstances of D, might’ve reacted in same way
Case: Camplin (1978), shows sex + age of D should be considered in assessing power of self-control expected of D
Case: Mohammed (2005), shows if D’s particularly hot tempered this isn’t considered as a factor
Case: R v Rejmanski (Bartosz) (2018), shows if D has mental health condition- also not considered as a factor - Defence fails if Jury consider that the ‘normal person’ might’ve lost control but wouldn’t have reacted in same way. Case: R v Van Dongen (2005)
