Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER- LOSS OF CONTROL - Coggle Diagram
VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER- LOSS OF CONTROL
DEFINITION
D has committed murder but is relying on a special defence in the HOMICIDE ACT 1957 and the CORONERS JUSTICE ACT 2009
Special Defence- If it's proved the charge will be reduced to manslaughter
LOSS OF CONTROL (S54(1) CORONERS AND JUSTICE ACT 2009)
D must have lost their self control at the time of the actus reus. Loss of control doesn't need to be sudden, women with a 'slow-burn' reaction won't be treated less fairly- R v Ahluwalia- Killed her husband by setting fire whilst he was asleep
Under old defence of 'provocation' found in the HOMICIDE ACT 1957, loss of control has to be sudden- R v Duffy- killed her husband but with a hammer whilst sleeping and their was violence in their marriage
The new law supports V's of DV who kill their abusers
Cumulative loss of control may still be possible, but must be proved- R v Dawes- D found his wife with a man and stabbed the man and claimed self-defence
D must not be acting in a 'considered desire for revenge'. A delay between the trigger and loss of control may be considered as evidence for a vengeful desire- R v Baillie- A man killed a drug dealer as they were threating his son
QUALIFYING TRIGGER- FEAR OF SEIOUS VIOLENCE (S55(1) CORONERS AND JUSTICE ACT 2009)
Protects female V's of DV and homeowners who are protecting property
Defence is subjective, it's how the D feared, not a reasonable person
The violence needs to be directed at the D, unlike the old 'provocation' defence- R v Pearson- Younger brother was being abused by his dad and the older brother killed the dad
QUALIFYING TRIGGER- THINGS DONE OR SAID (S55(2) CORONERS AND JUSTICE ACT 2009)
'Things done or said of extremely grave character, causing D a justifiable sense of being wronged'
This is a narrow and modern approach, things done or said must be 'extremely grave', unlike the old law where trivial matters could amount to provocation- R v Doughty- D killed a 17 day old baby as the mother couldn't do any housework due to surgery and so the baby wouldn't stop crying
SEXUAL INFIDELITY
HOMICIDE ACT 1957- Sexual infidelity was an accepted ground of provocation
S55(6C) CORONERS AND JUSTICE ACT 2009- 'the fact that a thing done or said constituted to sexual infidelity is to be disregarded'
R v Clinton- Woman said she had sexual relations with 5 men, laughed at suicide website, didn't want the kids
Court confirmed that when sexual infidelity alone was the trigger the defence isn't permitted. Where sexual infidelity was an 'essential part of the context' then the defence may be available
OBJECTIVE TEST
New defence follows AG for Jersey v Holley- The V was a V of DV and tried to stop the relationship, and they were both drunk when the V announced she had an affair and then the D hacked her to death with an axe
S54(1) CORONERS AND JUSTICE ACT 2009- Defence is only available if a person of the D's sex and age, normal degree of tolerance and same circumstances would have acted in the same way
This supported the ruling in DPP V Camplin- Held that the only characteristics relevant to compare to the reasonable person are those of age and sex. The D will most likely use the defence of diminished responsibility
BURDEN OF PROOF
R v Jewell- The D shot the V twice, killing him. The D said he snapped following weeks of intimidation from the V. There was evidence of premeditation as the D had a stolen van and weapons, planning to leave the next day which he tried to do
R v Brown- D claimed that he had blacked out before slitting his wife's throat. The manner of retaliation to the provocation is relevant to determining the reasonableness of the D's actions
Under the HOMICIDE ACT 1957- It's unclear whether manner of retaliation would be a factor under loss of control
HELENA KENNEDY QC
Described female reaction as 'a snapping in slow motion, the final surrender of a frayed elastic'
The courts seemed more lenient to the Ahluwalia case, an appeal was allowed and diminished responsibility was accepted instead
THORNTONS APPEAL- Woman stabbed husband when he came home drunk and tried to kick her out, he was abusive. Claimed diminished responsibility, but changed to provocation
The concept of 'battered womans syndrome' was accepted in the appeal and could be taken into account when considering whether there had been a sudden and temporary loss of control
Under new defence, a time delay is relevant when considering whether there had been a loss of control