Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Chapter 6: Voluntary Manslaughter - Coggle Diagram
Chapter 6: Voluntary Manslaughter
6.1 Partial defences to murder
Provocation was originally a common law defence but was given statutory recognition in the Homicide Act 1957 which also introduced the defence of diminished responsibility. Provocation was then altered to become loss of control in the Coroner's and Justice Act 2009.
6.3 Diminished Responsibility
6.2 Loss of control
Section 54 (1) Coroners and Justice Act 2009. 'Where a person kills or is party to the killing of another D is not to be convicted of murder if:
There must be a qualifying trigger
A person of the same sex and age would have reacted in the same way as the defendant in the circumstances.
Doesn't mention mental state.
The defendant must have lost self control
6.2.1 Burden of proof
The defendant must supply sufficient evidence for the defence to be considered. the prosecution must the disprove this.
R v Jewell 2014
there must be more than the accused 'bare assertion' of the defence.
6.2.2 Loss of self-control
It has to be a total loss of control as partial isn't sufficient as you would know what you were doing if it was partial.
From
R v Gurpinar 2015
it is defined as the defendant has lost the ability to maintain his actions in accordance with considered judgement or has he lost normal powers of reasoning.
Defendant lost his or her ability to maintain his or her action in accordance to the considered judgement.
Defendant lost his or her normal powers of reasoning
D's behaviour was atypical or out of character and they normally wouldn't have acted in this way.
temper or anger or a reaction out of character is not sufficient the defendant must have snapped or lost it.
under s54(2) the loss of control doesn't have to be sudden but under provocation it needed a sudden and temporary loss of control.
R v Ahluwalia 1992
she had been abused for many years by her husband, one night he threatened her with violence and when he was asleep she poured petrol over him an set him alight. she could not use provocation as her response to his threat was not sudden.
6.2.3 Qualifying trigger
section 55: sets out the qualifying triggers which are permitted.
The D's fear of serious violence from the victims against the defendant or another identified person.
Subjective test - the fear of serious violence about another identified person needs to be someone the defendant knows not a fear that the victim would in future use serious violence against people generally is not sufficient.
R v Dawes
- where the defendant has incite the violence he cannot rely on the qualifying trigger.
A thing or things done or said which:
Constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character, and
this is an objective test for the jury to decide providing there is sufficient evidence.
caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
R v Doughty 1986
- could use provocation
R v Zebedee
- was not able to use loss of control.
6.2.4 Standard of self-control
A person of the same sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance would have acted in the same way. This is a objective test.
Lady Justice Hallett - a personality disorder is not relevant such as a low iq or learning liability as it does not mention mental capacity.
Intoxication -
R v Asmelash
- voluntary intoxication is not a matter to be considered as part of the D's circumstances.
Voluntary manslaughter
The verdict when the defendant has a partial defence to murder, where the killing was carried out when the defendant was suffering from diminished responsibility or loss of control.
A partial defence is when the defendant isn't completely acquitted so in this case it would reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter.