voluntary manslaughter - loss of control Flashcards
what are the two defences in voluntary manslaughter
loss of control and diminished responsibility
what did the coroners and justice act 2009 change?
it changed the partial defence to ‘loss of control’
s.54 sets out circumstances in which the new partial defence applies
s.55 defines the ‘qualifying triggers’
what needs to be proved for loss of control
- the defendent must have lost control
- must be a qualifying trigger
- a person of the same sex and and age would have reacted as the defendant in the same circumstances
R v Jewell (2014)
D shot the defendent at point blank range using a shotgun and fled the scene, he was subsequently arrested in his car, which contained weapons ammo and what was described as a survival kit. incl. driving license, passport, clothes. at his trial D told the jury that when he got out of his car outside Ds house.
Insufficient evidence of loss of control as he pre planned the weapons and survival kit
3 key elements of loss of control
- must kill as a result of loss of control
- loss of control must have been caused by a recognized ‘qualifying trigger’
- a person with normal self control might have reacted in a similar way in Ds situation
what was the old law for voluntary manslaughter
provocation and diminished responsibility
what is the new laws for voluntary manslaughter
loss of control
diminished responsibility
suicide pact
what did the homicide act 1957 do for provocation
the old defence of provocation was a common law defence that was given statutory recognition in the homicide act 1957, could only be used as a murder charge, they have the actus reas but not the mens rea. allows the judge more discretion.
loss of self-control
did the defendant lose control when they did the act that caused the death?
they must have completely lost control
definition in R v Gurpimar (2015)
'’…has D lost his ability to maintain his actions in accordance with considered judgement or… lost normal powers of reasoning
R v Ahluwalia (1992)
The appellant poured petrol and caustic soda on to her sleeping husband and then set fire to him. He died six days later from his injuries. The couple had an arranged marriage and the husband had been violent and abusive throughout the marriage. He was also having an affair. On the night of the killing he had threatened to hit her with an iron and told her that he would beat her the next day if she did not provide him with money. At her trial she admitted killing her husband but raised the defence of provocation however, the jury convicted her of murder. She appealed on the grounds that the judge’s direction to the jury relating to provocation was wrong and she also raised the defence of diminished responsibility.
Held:
The judge’s direction on provocation was correct. The Duffy direction was good law and the judge had directed the jury on the issue of the abuse suffered by the appellant and thus the jury would have considered the affect of this in reaching their verdict. The appeal on the grounds of provocation was therefore unsuccessful.
However, the appeal was allowed on the grounds of diminished responsibility. The Court did, however, stress that it was exceptional that fresh evidence would be allowed.
Lord Taylor CJ:
“Ordinarily, of course, any available defences should be advanced at trial. Accordingly, if medical evidence is available to support a plea of diminished responsibility, it should be adduced at the trial. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that this court would require much persuasion to allow such a defence to be raised for the first time here if the option had been exercised at the trial not to pursue it. Otherwise, as must be clear, defendants might be encouraged to run one defence at trial in the belief that if it fails, this court would allow a different defence to be raised and give the defendant, in effect, two opportunities to run different defences. Nothing could be further from the truth. Likewise, if there is no evidence to support diminished responsibility at the time of the trial, this court would view any wholly retrospective medical evidence obtained long after the trial with considerable scepticism.”
Things said or done s55 (6)(c)
things said/done which amount to sexual infidelity are to be disregarded, if D kills V because they have been unfaithful a LOC defence cannot be claimed, it could still amount to a qualifying trigger if there are other circs of an extremely grey character
Clinton (2012)
The appellant and his wife both suffered from depression for which they were on prescribed medication. He was experiencing financial difficulties and stress at work. He and his wife agreed to a trial separation for four weeks as she needed time out. She left him with the children and moved into her parent’s home. The appellant did not cope well with this and became obsessional and had been looking at suicide websites. Two weeks later she revealed to him that she was having an affair. He asked for her to come to the matrimonial home in order to tell the children together that their marriage was over. She agreed to meet. However he had arranged for the children to be elsewhere at the time she was due to come and he was heavily intoxicated. At the meeting he killed her by repeatedly beating her on the head with a wooden baton and strangled her with a belt. He then took photos of her naked body in various poses and texted them to her lover.
According to the appellant, he lost his control at the meeting due to three factors:
- She had told him that she had had sexual relations with five men and was describing in graphic detail the acts they had performed.
- She had laughed and taunted him about a suicide website that he had been looking at on his computer.
- She had told him she no longer wanted the children.
The trial judge held that the defence of loss of control was not available to the defendant because the words relating to infidelity should be disregarded as a qualifying trigger and the remaining factors alone were not of an extremely grave character nor would they cause the appellant to have a justifiable sense of being wronged. The defence of diminished responsibility was left for the jury to decide, however they rejected this and found him guilty of murder. He appealed.
Held:
The defence of loss of control should have been put to the jury. His conviction for murder was quashed and a retrial ordered.
Sexual infidelity can not be relied upon on its own as a qualifying trigger, but its existence does not prevent reliance on the defence where there exist other qualifying triggers.
Where other factors count as a qualifying trigger, sexual infidelity may be taken into account in assessing whether things done or said amounted to circumstance of an extremely grave character and gave D a justifiable sense of being wronged under s.55(4)
Sexual infidelity may be taken into account in the third component of the defence in examining the defendant’s circumstances under s.54(1)(c).
things said and done - desire for revenge s54 (4)
the defence is not allowed if the defendant acted in a ‘considered desire for revenge’ if the defendant has had time to consider revenge then the response was not sudden
R v Ibrams and Gregory
following several incidents and threats of harassment, the two defendants made a plan to attack to attack the person who had threatened them, they carried out this plan and killed him two days later, they were convicted of murder and their convictions are upheld as there was no sudden loss of control
