voluntary manslaughter- loss of control

Question 1

two types of manslaughter

Answer 1

voluntary
involuntary

Question 1

voluntary manslaughter

Answer 1

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

Question 2

involuntary manslaughter

Answer 2

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.

Question 3

loss of control partial defence act

Answer 3

Coroners & Justice Act 2009
Sudden and temporary loss of control
can reduce murder to manslaughter

Question 4

diminished responsibility partial defence act

Answer 4

Homicide Act 1957 as amended by Coroners & Justice Act 2009
Acting under an abnormality of mental functioning
can get murder reduced to manslaughter

Question 5

requirements of using Coroners & Justice Act 2009, s.54 as a defense

Answer 5

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

Question 6

loss of self control (sub section of s55)

Answer 6

s.55(2): There is no need for this to be a sudden loss of control

However partial loss of control is not enough.

Question 7

what cases can be used to support definition

Answer 7

r v martin 2017
r v jewell 2014

Question 8

r v martin 2017

Answer 8

Even if there was a panicked response, this is not enough for a loss of control

Question 9

r v jewell 2014

Answer 9

actions indicated he was clearly in control. Acting out of character or in anger is not enough.

Question 10

the qualifying trigger (sub sections of s.55)

Answer 10

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

Question 11

s.55 (3)

Answer 11

D’s serious fear of violence from V against D or another person

Question 12

s.55 (3) case example

Answer 12

R v Ward
(feared further violence)

Question 13

s.55 (4)

Answer 13

Circumstances of an extremely grave character(odd/unusual)

Question 14

s.55 (4)(a) case example

Answer 14

r v zebedee
(father repeatedly shat himself)

Question 15

s.55 (4)(b)

Answer 15

Caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

Question 16

s.55 (4)(b) case example

Answer 16

r v hatter
(cheating girlfriend)

Question 17

limitations on the qualifying trigger
(sections from s.55 and cases to back up)

Answer 17

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

Question 18

the objective element

Answer 18

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”

Question 19

does this take mental illnesses into account

Answer 19

no

Question 20

what case backed this up

Answer 20

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”

Question 21

burden of proof meaning

Answer 21

refers to who has the responsibility (burden) of proving whether the defence applies or not – the prosecution or the defence

Question 22

case to back this

Answer 22

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.