Voluntary Manslaughter - Loss of Control Flashcards
What is Loss of control ?
Loss of control is a special defence to murder formerly known as provocation has now been significantly changed and replaced by S.54 of the Coroners Justice Act 2009
What does S.54(1) of the Coroners Justice Act state ?
Where a person (D) kills or is party to a killing of another (V), D is not to be convicted of murder if -
What does S.54(1)(a) say ?
D’s acts or omission in doing or being party to the killing resulted from D’s loss of self control
Explain what is meant by loss of control:
The D must have suffered a ‘loss of self-control’ however the trigger that made him/her lose self control doesn’t have to occur at the time of the killing as mentioned in S.54(2) It does not matter whether or not the loss of control was sudden
What was held in the case of R v Jewell and R v Ahluwalia ?
R v Jewell- The fact that D was unwell, tired, sleeping badly or unable to think straight is insufficient to a loss of control
R v Ahluwalia- under old law because of time gap between threat and murder she didn’t have the defence however she would now as the loss of control doesn’t need to be sudden
What does S.54(1)(b) state ? and what section explain this ?
S.54(1)(b) states the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger.
S.55 Explains the meaning of qualifying trigger
What does S.55(2) state ?
A loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger if subsection (3), (4) or (5) applies
What does S.55(3) state ?
S.55(3) This subsection applies if D’s loss of control was due to D’s fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person
What happened in the case of R v Martin and R v Lodge ?
In R v Martin the farmer who killed 2 burglars could possibly argue he was in fear of violence from intruder
in R v Lodge he pleaded LOC successfully on the basis that he lost it and killed v who was described as a small scale drug dealer and v attacked him with baseball bat.
A general fear would not be sufficient
What does S.55(4) state
S.55(4)- This subsection applies if D’s LOC as attributable to a thing said or done which -
S.55(4)(a) - constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character and/or
S.55(b) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being wronged
What was held in the case of R v Hatter ?
The breakup will not normally constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character not entitle the aggrieved party to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
What was stated in S.55(6)(c) and in R v Clinton
S.55(6)(c) - Sexual infidelity is to be disregarded as in R v Clinton
What does S.55(5) state ?
This subsection applies if D’s loss of control was attributable to combination of matters mentioned in subsection 3 and 4.
What does S.54(1)(c) state ? case ?
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/similar way of D
DPP v Camplin -judge directed jury to judge the D according to standards of an adult male
Only the D’s sex and age will be taken into account when deciding if another ‘normal person’ would have acted in the same way, however, other characteristics will be relevant when deciding level of self restraint to be expected , give case examples ?
R v Hill - V tried raping the D who was sexually abused as a child. Characteristics of being sexually abused would be relevant as to whether formerly abused person would have acted the same way
R v Van Dongen - jury thought ordinary person would lose self control however not act the same/similar way to him (kicked V to death who was curled up on the ground)
