Voluntary manslaughter - Loss of control Flashcards
Loss of control is a partial defence, what does this mean?
If successful, the D will be found guilty of manslaughter instead of murder which allows the judge to have discretion in sentencing.
Where is this defence set out and what did it replace?
Loss of control is set out in S54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and it replaced the defence of provocation.
What 3 things must be proven for the defence of loss of control to be successful?
1) The D must have lost self-control.
2) There must be a qualifying trigger.
3) A person the same sex and age would have reacted in the same/similar way as the D in the circumstances.
Who decides if the D lost self-control?
The jury decides but it has to be a complete loss of self-control. A partial loss isn’t sufficient.
How is loss of self-control defined?
There is no statutory definition or judicial interpretation of the meaning of loss of seld-control.
What isn’t sufficient when considering the D loosing self-control?
The D can’t have simply reacted out of character or in a fit of anger.
Can there be a delay between the trigger incident and the killing under loss of self-control?
Yes. there can be a delay.
What are the 2 qualifying triggers and explain them.
1) Fear trigger - The D feared serious violence from the V towards themselves or another.
AND/OR
2) Anger trigger - Things said or done which constituted circumstances of a very unusual character AND this caused the D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
What case links to the fear trigger, fear for another person by the V?
R v Ward (2012)
The D feared his brother was in danger after seeing his brother being shoved by the V (who was a friend). The D hit the V with a pickaxe leading to his death and the D pled guilty to manslaughter on grounds of loss of control which was accepted.
If the D incites the violence, can they rely on the qualifying trigger of fear of violence?
No.
Can sexual infidelity be used towards a qualifying trigger, name a case.
No, this was made very clear within the act as it was previously allowed in the old provocation law. BUT, it can be used for context within the killing.
A relevant case is R v Dawes (2013).
Although the loss of control doesn’t need to be sudden, what does it exclude?
It excludes acting in a way which is considered to be a desire for revenge under S54(4). A revenge element leads to the case failing.
In regards to an exam scenario and triggers, what must be proven?
Use the scenario to put forward evidence that supports the necessary qualifying triggers.
In regards to the 3rd aspect, how is it decided if another person of the same age and sex with a normal degree of self-restraint would have reacted the same/similar as the D?
The jury will assess what they believe in each case, in the exam, you will decide if another person would have reacted the same/similarly.
What are the only factors considered in the 3rd aspect of this defence?
Age and sex BUT can consider factors such as mental illness.
