Voluntary Manslaughter (murder Defences) Flashcards
Where was L.O.C set out
Coroners and justice act 2009 s 54
Where is diminished resp set out
S 2 Homicide act 1957 amended by a 52 CJA 2009
What are two partial defences to murder
Loss of control and diminished responsibility
What does section 54 (1) state about LOC
(1) where D kills/party to a killing, d won’t be convicted if:
(A) Ds acts/omissions result in being a party to the killing resulted from Ds LOC
B) qualifying trigger
C) person of Ds sex and age and normal self restraint and in circumstances might have reacted same or similarly
What case reformed Provocation to LOC
Ahluwalia 1992
Who is the burden of proof on for any defences
Defence with balance of prob
Does being depressed and tired amount to LOC
Nope, Jewell 2014
Does loss of control need to be sudden
No s 54 (2)
What does s 55 say about qualifying triggers
The Ds fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person OR 55 (3)
a thing (s) done or said which
A) constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character and
B.) caused d to have a justifiable sense of being serious wronged 55 (4)
Can be a combo (55 5)
What does 55 (3) say about d fearing violence
Subjective, needs to show LOC due to fear of violence
If D incited violence can’t rely on trigger (55 6 a), confirmed in Dawes 2013, with anger serious won’t be LOC
What is things done or said under 55 (4)
Of an extremely grave character and caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
Sub sec 4 sets a high threshold to things done or said making someone lose control (zebedee 2012)
What matters are excluded from LOC
Sexual infidelity (55 6 c) isn’t a reason on its own BUT can add weight to a reason (Clinton 2012)
Is desire for revenge a trigger for LOC
Nope but was for prov (baillie 1995)
What is the standard of self control under 54 (1) (c)
By age and sex of D
Hallett on rejmanski(2017) regardless of any disorder still judged by normal level, if disorder comes into it then it will come into circum
What does jury have to consider with losing control and reacting the same way
Defence will fail if jury considers a normal person might have lost control but not have reached the same way (prov case Van Dongen 2005 shoes thsi)
Define DR from s2 of the Homicide Act 1957
D was suffering from an abnormality or mental functioning which-
a) arose from a recognised medical condition
b) substantially impaired Ds ability to do one or more things mentioned in 1A and
c) provides an explanation for Ds acts/omi in party to the killing
1A those things are a) understand nature of conduct
b) form a rational judgement and c)exercise self control
1B explains Ds acts
Where does the recognised medical condition need to come from
WHO list
What is defined as abnormality of mental functioning
Abnormality of mind (Byrne 1960)
What does the LC say in its 2006 report about DR
Development immaturity should be included for Ds under 18
What does substantially impaired mean
Impaired Ds ability to either
a understand nature of conduct OR
b form rational judgment
c exercise self control
What is substantial defined as
Impairment which was of some importance Golds 2016
What does ‘provides an explanation for the Ds conduct mean’
2009 Act amendment that D has to prove it’s an explanation for acts
What possibilities must be considered when D is intoxicated at time of DR
- ) D intoxicated at time of killing
- ) d intoxicated and has pre existing condition
- ) intoxication due to addiction
What does ‘intoxication at time of killing’ mean in DR context
That intoxication on own can’t be used as basis for defence, mental condition must be used as main reason, still stands after C and Ju Act 2009. Confirmed in Dowds 2012
What does the D was intoxicated and has pre existing abnormality mean
Dietschmann 2003 : intoxication doesn’t prevent defence being used but medical condition still reason why killed not intoxication, mental functioning still more important
What does intoxication due to addiction mean in DR
If intoxicated due to addiction like ADS can be used as mental functioning for DR Wood 2008
What does the court have to consider in Stewart 2009 when it comes to DR
- ) was d suffering from abnormality of mental functioning (extent of ADS?)
- ) if so was it caused by ADS?
- ) Ability to do anything in 1A impaired? Relevant issues to be considered include extent of dependency, extent able to control drinking, capable of alcohol abstinence?, choosing to drink for a reason, pattern of drinking before killing and Ds ability to make decisions about everyday matters
