Loss of Control

• INTRODUCTION:

  Loss of control (LOC) is a special and partial defence to murder contained in s54 and s55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. If successful it reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter giving the judge a discretion in sentencing. 
• STAGE ONE:

  The killing must have resulted from a loss of control.  A LOC is a loss of the ability to exercise judgement + reason (Jewell). Reaction does not have to be sudden,the greater the deliberation, the more likely the killing was not the result of a true loss of control (Clinton). The LOC can arise from cumulative causes (Ahluwalia). The defence will not succeed where the defendant acted out of a considered desire for revenge (Jewell). LOC cannot be self-induced (inciting violence in the victim) or arise from an innocent victim (Zebedee).
• STAGE TWO:

  The LOC must arise from one or both of two qualifying triggers: fear of serious violence or things said or done. Things said or done (s 55(4)) must constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character and have caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. (Camplin). These elements are judged according to what ordinary people would perceive (Clinton; Dawes). Sexual infidelity must be disregarded but, if there are other factors present that could have prompted a loss of control, the defence can still be considered (Clinton).
• STAGE TWO

  Fear of serious violence (S55(3) can be against the defendant or another identified person (Ward 2012). There must be a fear of serious violence, not just a fear of violence (Clinton). This trigger is relevant where self defence is not available because the defendant has overreacted and used excessive force. 
• STAGE THREE

  The jury must be satisfied that a normal person of the same sex + age with a normal degree of tolerance , self restraint, + in the circumstances, would or might have acted in the same way as the D. Characteristics relevant to the circumstances of the LOC can also be considered: being taunted about a physical disability, but not mental illness or any factors which related to tolerance + self restraint ( intoxication, racial hatred or volatile personality). Where there is evidence of a mental illness, it could raised in relation to diminished responsibility (Mohammed).
• INTOXICATION

  If the defendant is intoxicated, the jury need to ignore the intoxication and determine whether a sober person would have reacted in the same way (Asmelash).