Voluntary Manslaughter (murder Defences)

Question 1

Where was L.O.C set out

Answer 1

Coroners and justice act 2009 s 54

Question 2

Where is diminished resp set out

Answer 2

S 2 Homicide act 1957 amended by a 52 CJA 2009

Question 3

What are two partial defences to murder

Answer 3

Loss of control and diminished responsibility

Question 4

What does section 54 (1) state about LOC

Answer 4

(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

Question 5

What case reformed Provocation to LOC

Answer 5

Ahluwalia 1992

Question 6

Who is the burden of proof on for any defences

Answer 6

Defence with balance of prob

Question 7

Does being depressed and tired amount to LOC

Answer 7

Nope, Jewell 2014

Question 8

Does loss of control need to be sudden

Answer 8

No s 54 (2)

Question 9

What does s 55 say about qualifying triggers

Answer 9

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)

Question 10

What does 55 (3) say about d fearing violence

Answer 10

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

Question 11

What is things done or said under 55 (4)

Answer 11

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)

Question 12

What matters are excluded from LOC

Answer 12

Sexual infidelity (55 6 c) isn’t a reason on its own BUT can add weight to a reason (Clinton 2012)

Question 13

Is desire for revenge a trigger for LOC

Answer 13

Nope but was for prov (baillie 1995)

Question 14

What is the standard of self control under 54 (1) (c)

Answer 14

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

Question 15

What does jury have to consider with losing control and reacting the same way

Answer 15

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)

Question 16

Define DR from s2 of the Homicide Act 1957

Answer 16

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

Question 17

Where does the recognised medical condition need to come from

Answer 17

WHO list

Question 18

What is defined as abnormality of mental functioning

Answer 18

Abnormality of mind (Byrne 1960)

Question 19

What does the LC say in its 2006 report about DR

Answer 19

Development immaturity should be included for Ds under 18

Question 20

What does substantially impaired mean

Answer 20

Impaired Ds ability to either
a understand nature of conduct OR
b form rational judgment
c exercise self control

Question 21

What is substantial defined as

Answer 21

Impairment which was of some importance Golds 2016

Question 22

What does ‘provides an explanation for the Ds conduct mean’

Answer 22

2009 Act amendment that D has to prove it’s an explanation for acts

Question 23

What possibilities must be considered when D is intoxicated at time of DR

Answer 23

1. ) D intoxicated at time of killing
2. ) d intoxicated and has pre existing condition
3. ) intoxication due to addiction

Question 24

What does ‘intoxication at time of killing’ mean in DR context

Answer 24

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

Question 25

What does the D was intoxicated and has pre existing abnormality mean

Answer 25

Dietschmann 2003 : intoxication doesn’t prevent defence being used but medical condition still reason why killed not intoxication, mental functioning still more important

Question 26

What does intoxication due to addiction mean in DR

Answer 26

If intoxicated due to addiction like ADS can be used as mental functioning for DR Wood 2008

Question 27

What does the court have to consider in Stewart 2009 when it comes to DR

Answer 27

1. ) was d suffering from abnormality of mental functioning (extent of ADS?)
2. ) if so was it caused by ADS?
3. ) 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