Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Voluntary Manslaughter (D satisfies AR & MR of murder, but they have a…

- - - - (s.54(1)) :red_flag: : Where a person (D) kills or is a party to the killing of another (V), D is not to be convicted of murder if - .
        
        a) D's acts or omissions in doing or being party to the killing resulted from D's loss of control. (Subjective)
        
        D must have lost control.
        
        :warning: No definition, must be interpreted as requiring extreme emotion and/or a loss of rationality; but not more than this.
        
        R v Jewell :red_flag:
        
        b) the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger; and
        
        (s.55(3)) :red_flag: Fear of serious violence from V to D or another (i.e. their child)
        
        D's fear need not be reasonable by objective standards..
        
        Fear need not be based on correct assessment of facts.
        
        D must react to genuine fear and a fear of serious violence.
        
        Useful defense if D kills out of fear of serious violence and self-defense is not available (i.e. due to unreasonably excessive force) :warning:
        
        This will only be undermined if D provokes V consciously to provide a defence for retaliatory violence. :warning:
        
        R v Dawes :red_flag:
        
        (s.55(4)) :red_flag: Thing(s) said or done (or both) which constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
        
        (Subjective) - D must personally feel seriously wronged.
        
        (Objective) - The feeling of wrong must be objectively justifiable, and the circumstance must be objectively grave)
        
        To prevent defense for D provoked by trivial events.
        
        I.e. a Baby Crying
        
        1 more item...
        
        Or events grave for D because of something objectionable about their character.
        
        Honor Killings
        
        1 more item...
        
        White supremacist provoked by lack of deference from V, a black man.
        
        D cannot rely on things said or done when they have incited them in order to use violence in response.
        
        (s.55(c)) :red_flag: Specifically excludes things said or done constituting 'sexual infidelity'.
        
        When sexual infidelity is not the sole trigger, it should be allowed to go to the jury alongside all other factors.
        
        R v Clinton :red_flag:
        
        c) 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 or in a similar way to D.
        
        A person of normal tolerance and self restraint might have reacted similarly.
        
        Voluntary intoxication is not to be considered when considering if D's actions were objectively understandable to a person of similar characteristics.
        
        R v Asmelash :red_flag:
        
        Would a normal person of D's sex and age and in a sober state react in the same way?
      - (s.54(2)) :red_flag: It does not matter whether or not the loss of control was sudden.
      - (s.54(4) :red_flag: Does not apply when D acted in a considered desire for revenge.
      - CORONERS AND JUSTICES ACT 2009 :red_flag:
    - - Burden of Proof
        
        Defense must prove diminished responsibility on the balance of probabilities.
        
        R v Foye :red_flag:
      - Abnormality of Mental Functioning
        
        R v Bryne :red_flag:
        
        A state of mind so different to that of ordinary human beings, that a reasonable man would term it abnormal.
        
        Medical evidence is a practical necessity to find abnormality of mental functioning.
        
        R v Bunch :red_flag:
      - Recognised medical condition
        
        R v Hobson :red_flag:
        
        Battered Woman Syndrome
        
        Mental Illness
        
        R v Sanderson :red_flag:
        
        R v Dowds :red_flag:
        
        Exclusion of medical illnesses
        
        Intoxication
        
        R v Dowds :red_flag:
        
        :warning:Exception, notwithstanding intoxication, D's abnormality of mind caused impaired mental capability.
        
        R v Dietschmann :red_flag:
        
        Pedophilia, unhappiness, anger
      - Substantially impaired D's ability to understand the nature of their conduct, form a rational judgement, and exercise control.
        
        Substantially
        
        R v Ramchurn :red_flag:
        
        More than merely trivial
      - Explains the cause of the killing
        
        Must be a causal link between the abnormality of the mind and the physical act.
        
        Can be multiple causes, abnormality of mind need not be the sole cause. (as long as abnormality of mind remained the substantial cause)
        
        R v Dietschmann :red_flag: