Crime Law - Fatal Offences

• Murder


  The most serious offence against another person
• Manslaughter


  A broad term which ranges between intentional killing and accidental death
• Types of Manslaughter


  • Voluntary manslaughter
  • Involuntary manslaughter
• Voluntary manslaughter


  Situations where the accused would be convicted of murder, but because of a special defence they are only convicted of manslaughter
• Special defences for voluntary manslaughter

  • Loss of Control
  • Diminished Responsibility
• Involuntary manslaughter


  Unlawful killing where the Actus Reus of murder has been committed, but without the necessary Mens Rea for murder ("malice aforethought")
• Ways of committing involuntary manslaughter

  • Unlawful act manslaughter
  • Gross negligence manslaughter
• Voluntary manslaughter

  Murder is reduced to manslaughter due to one of two special defences: Loss of Control or Diminished Responsibility
• Loss of Control

  • D causes death but at the time of the killing lost self-control and reacted as a "normal person" might have in D's situation
• Loss of Control


  1. Loss of self-control

  2. Qualifying trigger

  3. Normal person test
• Loss of self-control


  A loss of ability to act in accordance with considered judgment or a loss of normal powers of reasoning
• Loss of control is judged subjectively. It is a question of fact - did D actually lose control at the time of the act or omission which caused V's death?
• The loss of control need not be sudden: s.54(2). It may follow from the cumulative impact of earlier events, i.e.it can build up over time.
• s.54(4) specifically excludes situations where D has acted "in a considered desire for revenge".
• Qualifying Trigger


  D's loss of control must be attributable to a "qualifying trigger"
• Qualifying Triggers


  • Fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person
  • Things said or done (or both) which are of an extremely grave character AND caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
• Sexual infidelity cannot "on its own" qualify as a trigger, BUT its exclusion does not apply where sexual infidelity forms an essential part of another possible trigger
• A person may not raise a qualifying trigger if they incited the thing done or said or the violence
• s.55(4) excludes situations where D has acted "in a considered desire for revenge"
• Normal person test


  • A person of the Defendant's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of the Defendant, might have reacted in the same or similar way
• Apart from sex and age, the jury cannot consider any circumstance of D that might have made him or her have less self-control
• Voluntary intoxication is not a "circumstance" for the purposes of the normal person test
• The defence will fail if the jury considers that the "normal person" might have lost control but would not have reacted in the same way
• Diminished Responsibility


  A person who kills may be convicted of manslaughter rather than murder if he or she was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which arose from a recognised medical condition, substantially impaired D's ability to understand the nature of his conduct, form a rational judgment, or exercise self-control, and provides an explanation for D's acts and omissions in killing
• Diminished Responsibility


  • Abnormality of mental functioning
  • Recognised medical condition
  • Substantial impairment
  • Explains the killing
• Abnormality of mental functioning


  A state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal
• Manslaughter


  A person who kills may be convicted of manslaughter rather than murder if they were suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning
• Abnormality of mental functioning (AMF)

  • Arises from a recognised medical condition
  • Substantially impairs D's ability to understand the nature of their conduct, form a rational judgment, or exercise self-control
  • Provides an explanation for D's acts in killing
• Severe learning difficulties may also be included, but "normal immaturity on the part of the child should not qualify for a defence of diminished responsibility
• Evidence from expert witnesses is vital at the trial
• Substantial impairment


  The abnormality of mental functioning must substantially impair D's ability to understand the nature of their conduct, form a rational judgment, or exercise self-control
• What amounts to a "substantial" impairment is a matter of degree for the jury in each case
• Provides an explanation for D's conduct

  The abnormality of mental functioning must cause, or be a significant contributory factor in causing, D to carry out the conduct
• The burden of proof is on the defence, but D need only prove it on the balance of probabilities
• Intoxication due to addiction or dependency

  Alcohol Dependency Syndrome is a recognised medical condition which may support a defence of diminished responsibility
• Intoxication alone cannot support a defence of diminished responsibility
• If D is already suffering from an AMF and has taken drugs or alcohol, the defence will be available if D can satisfy the jury that, despite the drink, their abnormality was a substantial impairment which explained the killing
• Diminished Responsibility Flowchart


  1. Did D have an abnormality of mental functioning?

  2. Did the AMF arise from a recognised medical condition?

  3. Was D's ability to understand the nature of their conduct, form a rational judgment, or exercise self-control substantially impaired?

  4. Does D's abnormality provide an explanation for their conduct in killing?
• Diminished Responsibility Checklist


  • Is there an abnormality of mental function?
  • Does it arise from a recognised medical condition?
  • Does it substantially impair D's mental ability?
  • Does it explain the killing?
• Unlawful act manslaughter


  Where D causes death through doing an unlawful and dangerous act with the necessary mens rea for the unlawful act