Evaluation of loss of control

• The old law on provocation has been reformed to provide more protection to victims, for example where sexual infidelity is concerned.

  It also affords more protection to battered women who may not have been able to satisfy the requirement under the old law for the loss of control to be sudden.

  It can be argued that the objective test for loss of control is illogical as a person with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint would not kill in the first place.

  However, if the partial defences did not exist, it is argued that juries may be tempted to acquit defendants out of sympathy.
• Crutisms?/?


  Parsons, S. in his 2015 article "The Loss of Control Defence - Fit for Purpose?" JCL 79 (94) raises several criticisms:

  The act has been argued to be badly drafted - for example loss of control itself is not defined, and is left to the jury to decide in each case.

  Sexual infidelity is not defined by the Act, and the jury are supposed to disregard it when considering the anger trigger. However they can take it into account as part of the objective test. This is confusing for juries.
• The loss of control defence may be insufficiently available to defendants if the courts continue to interpret it narrowly.
• Further reform?

  A requirement to demonstrate "provoked extreme emotional disturbance" would be preferable as the case law on what is meant by loss of control is vague and inconsistent.

  Withey (2011): Should there be a separate defence for domestic abuse cases where there would be no loss of control requirement?