Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
voluntary manslaughter (loss of control) - Coggle Diagram
voluntary manslaughter (loss of control)
loss of control s54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 - replaced the previous special defence of Provocation.
1) that they lost self-control, 2) lost self-control as a result of a qualifying trigger, 3) that a person of the same age and sex (with normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D) might have reacted in the same way or a similar way to the D.
loss of control successful: murder charge reduced to one of voluntary manslaughter, meaning judge does not have to give a mandatory life sentence.
does not apply if D acted in a considered desire for revenge (s.54 (4) subsection (1))
loss of control cases
R v Goodwin - D bludgeoned victim to death with hammer, pleaded self-defence and loss of control, CoA stated the partial defence could only be proven if evidence was produced for each of its elements.
R v Martin (Anthony) - D armed himself with shot gun, killed burglar without warning, reduced to manslaughter as evidence of diminished responsibility (fear of serious violence can be a qualifying trigger - cannot be general fear of violence)
R v Ward - accepted that there could be a fear that violence would be used on another person; this would still amount to a qualifying trigger, and that it doesn't matter whether the loss of control was sudden or not as people in different situations wouldn't act similarly.
R v Ibrams and Gregory - current boyfriend of girlfriend planned and killed ex-boyfriend after he harassed them, convicted of murder as there was no evidence of provocation between last seeing ex and killing him, no sudden loss of self control as acted in revenge.
Jewell - no evidence of a loss of control as D had planned and there was direct intention, shot victim point blank range, twice, with shotgun.
R v Doughty - D killed 19-day old baby after it wouldn't stop crying, CoA quashed conviction as should be left to jury if the baby's crying was provocation by 'things done', not applicable now.
R v Zebedee - D killed grandad with Alzheimer's who kept having toilet accidents, murder conviction upheld, in order for 'things done or said' needs to be a qualifying trigger.
R v Hatter - D killed girlfriend after being cheated on, 'justifiable sense of being seriously wronged' and the situation as 'extremely grave' judged objectively; breakup of a relationship was not extremely grave so did not justify the D a sense of being seriously wronged.
expanse on s.54
loss of self-control - s54(2) states loss of control does not need to be sudden, meaning there may be a delay between the qualifying trigger and D killing V.
qualifying trigger - s.55(3) - fear of serious violence from V against D or an identified person/ s55(4) - things said or things done by the V to D.
limitations on a qualifying trigger - s.55(6)(a) fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded, s.55(6)(b) a person may not raise a qualifying trigger if they incited the thing done or said or the violence.
things said/ things done - 1) were of an extremely grave character and 2) that the things done caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
standard of self control - D compared to another person of same sex and age.
more cases
R v Clinton - D and wife were depressed and on meds, she had affair, D killed wife, took pics and sent to lover, sexual infidelity was not a qualifying trigger, guilty.
standard of self control
DPP v Camplin - D was a 15 year old boy who killed V after V had sexually abused him and laughed, the V be now compared to another 15 year old boy.
Coroners and Justice Act puts this into statutory form (objective test) - 1) the D is compared to a person with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint, 2) the D's characteristics are not considered, 3) personal circumstances can be considered.
R v Meanza - old man beat carer to death 3 hours after she asked him to turn down the TV, wasn't allowed loss of control/diminished responsibility.