Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Loss of control (2. A qualifying trigger (There are two types of triggers,…
Loss of control
2. A qualifying trigger
There are two types of triggers, one or both must exist
Section 55(3): The fear trigger- applies if D's loss of self-control was attributable to a 'fear of serious violence from V against D or another person.'
- R v Ward (2012)
- R v Lodge (2014)
Section 55(4): The anger trigger-applies if D's loss of self-control was attributable to a thing or things done or said (or both) which:
(a) constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and
(b) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
"Cumulative impact" - R v Dawes (2013): " The loss of self control may follow from the cumulative impact of earlier events"
Both triggers together- S.55(5) allows for both triggers to operate together . R v Dawes (2013): In most cases the trigger based on a fear of violence will almost inevitably include consideration of things said and done, in sort, a combination of the features identified in s.55(3) and (4)
Sexual infidelity- R v Clinton (2012): Sexual infidelity cannot, on its own, qualify as a trigger [but] where sexual infidelity is integral to and forms an essential part of the context, the prohibition in s.55(6)(c) does not operate to exclude it"
Restrictions: s.55(6)(a) and (b): If either trigger is self inflicted, i.e. if D 'incited' something to be done or said 'for the purpose of providing an excuse to use violence', then it is to be disregarded (s.55(6)(a) and s.55(6)(b)
Restrictions: s.55(6)(c): ' The fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded' (would apply to trigger 2)
Ministry of Justice (July 2008):"It is quite unacceptable for [D] who has killed an unfaithful partner to seek blame [V] for what occurred."
-
-
Section 54, Coroners & Justice Act 2009
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 and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D's loss of self control
(b) The loss of self control had a qualifying trigger, and
(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 similar way to D.
Procedural aspects
- Only available as a partial defence to murder (s.54(1))
- The defence must first adduce 'sufficient evidence' (s.54(5))
- Burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove the defence beyond a reasonable doubt (s.54(5))
- If successful, results in a conviction of manslaughter
'Sufficient evidence'
Whether evidence is sufficient is a question of law
- R v Clinton (2012): "If there is evidence on which the jury could reasonably conclude that the loss of control defence might apply, it must be left to the jury"
-
1. Loss of self control
R v Clinton (2012): "S.54(1)(a) is self explanatory. The killing must have resulted from the loss of self-control. The loss of self control need not be sudden, but it must have been lost. That is essential."
-