Voluntary Manslaughter… Loss of Control!

Voluntary Manslaughter… Loss of Control!
September 2014 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

Loss of control… starter
A charge of Murder may be reduced to a manslaughter conviction if loss of control is shown…. You have 60 seconds to jot down as many examples of loss of control as you can 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

template from www.brainybetty.com copyright 2006
Aims and objectives In this session we are aiming to: Develop knowledge of the partial defence of loss of self control by: loss of self control Identify and types of behaviour which will suffice as evidence of Use legal to support each point 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

History of provocation/loss of control
Essentially a common law defence available to men who kill partners who have been adulterous! Developed by the Court of Appeal in R v Duffy 1949 Initially embedded into statutory framework under s.3 Homicide Act 1957 Now s3 has been replaced by ss54 – 56 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

This is a defence to MURDER!
Like DR this defence is only available for murder!!! A D can not use loss of control as a defence for anything else like gbh! Remember this for the exam 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

s.54 -56 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
The OLD law on provocation was contained in s.3 Homicide Act 1957. Now Provocation has been abolished and replaced by ss C&JA 2009 In the exam you should NOT use the defence of provocation – instead you need to use the defence of loss of control. 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

Loss of control .... Three Key Elements There has to be evidence that that D lost self control The loss of self control had a qualifying trigger The jury must be satisfied that a reasonable man might have acted in a similar way. 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

Loss of self control is a matter for the jury
The defence must firstly raise the defence through evidence The judge will then decide if evidence of loss of self control can be put to the jury The prosecution must then prove beyond reasonable doubt that the attack leading to the death was unprovoked. We go back to the normal criminal standard now!! {R v Baille 1995 –provocation a matter which is best decided by a jury} 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

Your answers… Your answers should therefore always be structured under three main headings: 1 – Is there evidence of loss of self control 2 – was there a qualifying trigger 3 – Would it have caused such a reaction in a reasonable man? 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

Element One – Loss of Self Control
Historically, R v Duffy is the leading authority on this point There must be a “sudden and temporary loss of self control, rendering the accused so subject to passion as to make him or her for the moment not the master of his own mind”. D must therefore show that the qualifying trigger affected HIM/HER so strongly that he/she lost self control… What type of test is this? Subjective!! 01/12/2018

Note however .... The law has now changed!
S.54(2) no longer require the loss of control to be sudden! It does however say there has still got be a loss of control – it can not simply be a D seeking revenge. Where is this set out in the statute? s.54(4) 01/12/2018

Let’s have a look at the statute...
What are some of the key points in the statute? Add your annotations to the copy of the statute. 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

So, lets begin with the first element…. Is there evidence of loss of self control? The loss of self control will normally be things said or done, by the victim, to the defendant, but this does not always have to be so…. Can you think of some examples of things that might provoke someone…..? 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

Case research activity…
Consider the 5 cases under this element on your handout pay careful attention to what is permitted to constitute loss of self control. Next, identify they points which come out of these cases… hint… there are 4 rules to look for! 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

What do these cases tell us?
R v Drydon (1995) There must be actual “loss of control” Planned revenge is not enough! How do you decide the difference? The jury decide! 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

R Ibrams and Gregory (an unual case!) The defence of provocation was not allowed as the act was not sudden Would it succeed under the new law? Maybe! S.54(2) – need not be a sudden loss of control BUT s.54(4) can not just be act of revenge. 01/12/2018

R v Alhuwalia (1992) The defence of provocation was not allowed as the act was not sudden Would it succeed under the new law? Yes! One of the reasons the new law was introduced was to allow women who kill in desperation to use this new defence See article by Joshua Rozenburg 01/12/2018

Can the D rely on self induced loss of control?
Under the old law provocation could be self induced – R v Johnson However, under the new law self induced loss of self control cannot be relied upon! S.55(6)(b) Remember this for problem questions in the exam! 01/12/2018

Starter activity 01/12/2018

Consolidation points…
There must be a loss of self control It need not be sudden - s.54(2) Planned acts of retaliation and revenge will not support loss of self control - s.54(4) Self induced loss of self control will not support the partial defence. Task: now complete the consolidation section on your handout! 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

Loss of control .... Three Key Elements There has to be evidence that that D lost self control The loss of self control had a qualifying trigger The jury must be satisfied that a reasonable man might have acted in a similar way. 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

Element 2 – Qualifying trigger ...
What were the qualifying triggers in the cases of Davies and Pearson...? Does it have to come from the actual victim? 01/12/2018

Cases ... R v Davies (1975) D killed wife. The behaviour of her male friend could have led to loss of self control R v Pearson (1992) Son killed father due to dads abuse of brother 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

Has the act that causes D to lose control got be unlawful?
No! R v Doughty – crying baby However now must satisfy the requirements of s.55. Do you think Doughty would have the same outcome under s.55? 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

Key changes from previous law…
It is now clear thanks to the provision of s55(6)(c) that sexual infidelity must be disregarded as a qualifying trigger . Unless, if disregarding that infidelity, the thing said or done by V to D still amounts to a grave circumstance Eg. husband rapes wife’s sister and wife kills husband. 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

Task ... Now complete the consolidation task on page 11 of your handout. Remember make your points clearly! Are you showing the person reading it you FULLY understand? 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

And so, to the final question…Would a reasonable man have been provoked to act in a similar way to D? The key question here is what effect would the qualifying trigger have had on the reasonable man? This is an objective test and has caused some controversy in the courts over recent years D’s conduct is measured against an objective standard and the question asked is “Was the loss of self control excusable”? Please note that even under provocation the law expects the reasonable man to exercise a certain level of control 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

Important parts of the Coroners and Justice act
S.54 (1) – age and sex S.54(3) – take into account D’s circumstances. Confusion: what circumstances should be taken into account? 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

Often this will not be a problem ...
R vLesbini A woman V made a number of anti-Semitic remarks directed at D, who was Jewish; D took a loaded revolver V had provided for target practice, chased after her when she ran away, and shot her. D's conviction for murder was affirmed by the Court of Appeal; a reasonable man would not have responded so strongly to comparatively little provocation. 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

Who is the reasonable man?
However this test has also led to some very harsh decisions which have since been criticised… Bedder v DPP This case said that the reasonable man would not suffer from impotence? 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

DPP v Camplin (1978) This case introduced a subjective element to the reasonable man test to try and make it fair .... This was achieved by a 2 part test which is now set out in s.54(1) (c) and (3) 1. Would a reasonable man of the same age and sex as D be provoked by such conduct? 2. Would the reasonable man, of all D circumstances, lose control as D did? (Social, religious and cultural circumstances.) YOU NEED TO KNOW THIS TEST!!! 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

Other cases dealing with characteristics…
R v Newall – reasonably permanent characteristics only to be considered R v Morhall – glue sniffing relevant when assessing gravity of provocation even when self induced but not when assessing the level of self control displayed R v Humphreys – immaturity and attention seeking behaviour were relevant and permanent characteristics 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

Key cases .... Luc Thiet Thuan [1996] PC (Hong Kong) Any mental infirmity on D's part, said Lord Goff, that reduced his powers of self-control below those of an ordinary person, could not be ascribed to the ordinary person for the purposes of the objective test. So – it is still largely objective as in Camplin. R v Smith (Morgan James) This case widened the test and said the jury should be able to take into account any factor they feel is relevant. R v Holley This case narrowed the test back down to the Camplin test now in the C&JA 2009/. So we compare the D to a person of the same age and sex as D but with ordinary powers of self control. 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

AG (Jersey) v Holley 2005 D killed girlfriend with axe whilst intoxicated, he admitted the killing but claimed provocation On appeal (by the prosecution) the Privy Council disagreed with Smith(Morgan Jones) They suggested the Luc ruling was the correct one which clearly states the objective element of the test should only take into account the age and sex of D when assessing the ability to exercise self control in the objective element of the test 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

Holley is approved in… R v James and Karimi 2006 – this case has the effect of creating a precedent in English Law as Holley is widely regarded as persuasive given that it is a Privy Council decision Therefore you must quote both cases in the exam! 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

Check your understanding…have you?
Defined loss of self control using the Coroners and Justice Act Described examples of loss of self control Explained qualifying triggers Established what the “reasonable man” test is Used key cases to illustrate your points Well done, you are now ready to progress to the appliction stage! 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

Exercise…. Complete the consolidation chart at the back of your handout Complete the mini problem questions at the end of your handout Remember you need to establish whether a murder has been committed first and then look at Voluntary Manslaughter Then, complete the past exam question as directed by your tutor. 01/12/2018 template from copyright 2006

Voluntary Manslaughter… Loss of Control!

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Voluntary Manslaughter… Loss of Control!"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Voluntary Manslaughter… Loss of Control!

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Voluntary Manslaughter… Loss of Control!"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback