circumstances of the defendant

• although only age and sex can be considered in deciding the level of self control expected from the defendant, other circumstances can be taken into account such as mental illness and a history of sexual abuse.
• What is the significance of r v rejmanski?

  The court confirmed that a mental disorder may be a relevant circumstance of the defendant, but it cannot be relevant to the question fo the normal degree of tolerance and self restraint exercised.
• what case confirms that a mental disorder may be a relevant circumstance of the defendant, but it cannot be relevant to the question fo the normal degree of tolerance and self restraint exercised?

  R v Rejmanski
• what is the significance of trhe case of r v asmelash?

  voluntary intoxication cannot be considered for either loss of control or diminished responsibility
• if a sober person in an intoxicated defendant's circumstances, with normal levels of tolerance and self restraint may have acted in the same way when confronted by the relevant qualifying trigger, then the defendant might still be able to plead the defence of loss of control even though they are intoxicated
• If a defendant with a severe problem with drugs and or alcohol was mercilessly taunted about this problem so that it was a qualifying trigger, the alcohol or drug problem would then form part of the circumstances for the jury to consider
• If the defendant's drug and/or alcohol problem becomes a factor that must be considered for the defendant's consideration, the jury would need to consider whether a normal person would have reacted in the same circumstances of the defendant as the defendant did. the defence will fail if the jury considers that a normal person might have lost control, but acted in a different way.
• Sections 54 (5) and s54 (6) of the coroners and Justice Act 2009 states that if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue concerning the defence of loss of control, the jury must assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it is not.