Unit 3 Defenses: Loss of Control (Loss of self control: (S.54(2)- the loss…
Unit 3 Defenses: Loss of Control
Corners and Justice Act 2009
Loss of self control:
)- the loss does not have to be sudden
There may be a delay between the triggering act and the killing. HOWEVER the longer the delay the less likely the jury will believe there was a LOC
: D was subjected to physical abuse by V. Held a minor incident could act as a last straw and trigger a sudden loss of control, following a long build up of provocation.
D was abused by her husband for 10 years, threw petrol on her husband and et him on fire while he slept. the delayed reaction under old law meant that D was held guilty.
Ibrams and Gregory
: Ds had been bullied by V, they attacked him in his sleep. nothing had happened on the night to make Ds lose control. Cannot claim the defense.
D killed the drug dealer that supplied drugs to his son. just because there was a delay doesn't mean there wasn't a loss of control
Definition of LOC
the loss of self control had a qualifying trigger
A person of D's sex and age with a normal degree of self restraint and in the same circumstances would of reacted in the same way
D's act or omission resulted from a loss of self control
S.55(3) - Fear of serious violence against D or another:
Subjective test where D must show he genuinely feared serious violence. Does not matter if the fear was unreasonable but that he genuinely believed it.
:D and his brother are drinking with V, V head butts D's brother, D feared for his brother and killed V. Fear of serious Violence was a sufficient qualifying trigger
S.55(4) - Things said or done which constituted circumstances f a grave character and caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
. Objectively tested
: Ds father with alzimers moves in with D. after changing his father his father soiled him self again. D claimed this constituted a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. This was not held to be sufficient when objectively tested.
sets out the qualifying triggers
S.55(5)- A combination of the two of them
Person of the same age and sex:
Person of the same sex and age would have reacted in the same way as D and in the same circumstances. Is an OBJECTIVE test
AG for Jersy v Holley
: held the jury must consider that provocation on a person of the same age and sex of D, but with the ordinary powers of self control would have acted in the same way. Don't take in to account any mental abnormality.
holds that certain things are notqualifying triggers.
Sexual infidelity- Clinton
revenge killings - Ibrams S.54(6)
If D provoked V, into provoking him