Requirements: Victim was a person, victim died, D caused V's death and D intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

Mens rea: An intetnion to kill or cause grievous bodily harm - DPP v Smith 'really serious harm' e.g. loss of blood, broken bones.

Killings which would be murder as there is intention but the d has a relevant defence.

A defence only to murder, if successful the D is guilty of manslaughter.

D must show loss of self control caused by a 'qualifying trigger' and an ordinary reasonable person in the same posiiton would have reacted the same way.

Thornton [1992] – D had history of mental illness and had very violent relationship with husband. D stabbed her husband and claimed loss of control. CoA upheld murder conviction as it was not a sudden loss of control as she went to a different room and then grabbed a knife to stab him.

R. v Clinton [2012] - The discovery of sexual infidelity is not a qualifying trigger for self-control. So should always be murder instead of manslaughter. But can be relevant in explanation of potency of other legally allowable triggers.

qualifying triggering events for loss of self control: fear of serious violence and/or things said or done which constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.

An abnormality of mental functioing, which must arise form a recognised medical condition and there must be substaitnial substantial impairment of the defendant’s ability to understand nature of his conduct, form rational judgment + exercise self control. The abnormality of mental function must be a significant contributory factor in causing D to kill.

Bunch [2013] – medical evidence must be produced but jury are not bound to accept it.

Dowds [2012] – D claimed acute intoxication was a recognised medical condition (as it is recognised by the world health organisation). This was rejected by the CoA on the basis it was not a sufficient condition for diminished responsibility.