Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Loss of control - Coggle Diagram

- - - - S55(4) - two requirements
        
        Things said or done that "constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character" - s55(4)(a) AND
        
        Which "caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged" - s55(4)(b)
        
        Cases
        
        R v Doughty killed baby son aged 19 days for crying too much - not in control of itself. Provocation
        
        R v Zebedee 94 yr old who is doubly incontinent wasn't able to control himself. Loss of control.
      - Fear of serious violence - s55(3)
        
        The defendant must fear violence from the victim against him or another identified person. Subjective test.
        
        A fear in the future is not generally sufficient.
      - Events that cannot qualify as a trigger
        
        Sense of being seriously wronged caused by something defendant invited to be done - s55(a)(b)
        
        Sexual infidelity - s55(6)(a)
        
        Clinton - questions of what amounts to infidelity and in the context of what relationship - here trial judge took the option away from the jury and said couldn't be a defence - Court of Appeal disagreed as also triggered by taunting, thoughts of what would happen to children etc.
        
        Where infidelity is the sole reason for acting, the defence fails - where it is party of a wider picture, the judge can consider all the evidence, including infidelity
        
        Fear of violence caused by something defendant incited to be done - s55(6)(a)
        
        Aka where defendant created the situation - provoking a response to give them an excuse to kill - hard to prove and more than fighting etc. - R v Dawes #
        
        s54(4) - no defence if "acted in a considered desire for revenge"
        
        Ibrams and Gregory - planning is not sudden under Provocation
        
        However under provocation if there is an element of a desire for revenge R v Baillie
  - - - R v Ahluwalia - defence failed both because of time delay (not sufficient alone but the longer the delay, the more likely it will negative the defence) and evidence of planning
        
        Under Provocation
  - - - Loss of control and intoxication - R v Asmelash
        
        Will not assist if the only relevant is to tolerance and self-restraint - s54(3)
        
        If connected to the qualifying trigger, will be taken into account in assessing it
        
        Can use when drunk
    - - Reference to all of D's circumstances other than those whose only relevance to D's conduct is that they bear on D's general capacity for tolerance or self-restraint" - s54(3) # #