voluntary manslaughter- loss of control Flashcards
booklet 11
two types of manslaughter
voluntary
involuntary
voluntary manslaughter
defendant has voluntarily ended the victim’s life, but there are some overriding circumstances which explain why they took that action that they would not usually take- reduces murder to manslaughter
involuntary manslaughter
these offences cover where the defendant has not intended to kill the victim – they have either committed another dangerous criminal offence which inadvertently lead to death, or they have been extremely negligent and have caused death as a result.
loss of control partial defence act
Coroners & Justice Act 2009
Sudden and temporary loss of control
can reduce murder to manslaughter
diminished responsibility partial defence act
Homicide Act 1957 as amended by Coroners & Justice Act 2009
Acting under an abnormality of mental functioning
can get murder reduced to manslaughter
requirements of using Coroners & Justice Act 2009, s.54 as a defense
Where a person (D) kills or is a party to the killing of another (V), D is not to be convicted of murder if:
D’s loss of self-control,
The loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger
the objective element- a person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D
loss of self control (sub section of s55)
s.55(2): There is no need for this to be a sudden loss of control
However partial loss of control is not enough.
what cases can be used to support definition
r v martin 2017
r v jewell 2014
r v martin 2017
Even if there was a panicked response, this is not enough for a loss of control
r v jewell 2014
actions indicated he was clearly in control. Acting out of character or in anger is not enough.
the qualifying trigger (sub sections of s.55)
s.55(3): D has lost control due to D’s serious fear of violence from the V against D or another person
s.55(4): D’s loss of control is attributable to something said or done which:
accounts to circumstances of an extremely grave character
Caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
s.55(5): Or a combination of both of the above
s.55 (3)
D’s serious fear of violence from V against D or another person
s.55 (3) case example
R v Ward
(feared further violence)
s.55 (4)
Circumstances of an extremely grave character(odd/unusual)
s.55 (4)(a) case example
r v zebedee
(father repeatedly shat himself)
s.55 (4)(b)
Caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
s.55 (4)(b) case example
r v hatter
(cheating girlfriend)
limitations on the qualifying trigger
(sections from s.55 and cases to back up)
s.55(6)(c): Sexual infidelity (cheating) is to be disregarded (R v Clinton 2012)
s.55(6)(b): If D incites a reaction from V, D cannot then rely on that for the defence (R v Dawes 2013)
defence not availble here
the objective element
s.54(1)(c): This states that the jury must decide if a person of D’s sex and age and in D’s circumstances would react in the same way.
This hypothetical person needs to have a “normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint”
does this take mental illnesses into account
no
what case backed this up
r v wilcocks
if D has a mental illness which causes him to get abnormally angry, he does not have a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint, and then the mental illness should not be looked at by the jury as part of D’s “circumstances”
burden of proof meaning
refers to who has the responsibility (burden) of proving whether the defence applies or not – the prosecution or the defence
case to back this
R v Gurpinar 2015
In this case, neither of the two defendant’s brought up Loss of Control on their murder trial.
On appeal, they said the judge had a responsibility to bring it up as a possible defence for the jury to consider.
