loss of control

Cards (32)

  • where was loss of control created and defined?
    s54 of the coroners and justice act 2009
  • what did loss of control replace?
    provocation
  • what type of defence is loss of control?
    special and partial
  • what did the crown prosecution say about loss of control?
    ‘the defence itself is self-contained and its common law roots are irrelevant.’
  • what is the first element?
    loss of control
  • where was the first element defined?
    s54(a)
  • what was said in s54(a)?
    defendant’s acts or omissions in doing or being party to the killing resulted from the defendant’s loss of control
  • what was confirmed in jewell?

    a loss of ability to act in accordance with considered judgement or a loss of normal powers of reasoning
  • what was said in s54(2)?

    it does not matter whether the loss of control is sudden
  • what was said in s54(4)?
    loss of control is unavailable if, in doing or being party to the killing, the defendant acted in a considered desire for revenge
  • what is the second element?
    qualifying trigger
  • what did the crown prosecution service say in relation to s54(4)?

    the defence is not available to those who act in a considered desire for revenge. this is so, even if the defendant loses self-control as a result of one of the qualifying triggers
  • where are the qualifying triggers contained?

    s55 coroners and justice act 2009
  • what are the accepted triggers?
    the fear trigger, the anger trigger, or both
  • where is the fear trigger defined?
    s55(3)
  • what is the fear trigger?
    the defendant faced serious violence from the victim against himself or another identified person
  • is the threat of violence on another a sufficient qualifying trigger?
    yes
  • what type of test is the fear trigger?

    subjective
  • where is the anger trigger defined?

    s55(4)
  • what is the anger trigger?

    there were things said or done (or both) which: (a) constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and (b) caused defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
  • how many elements must be proven for the anger trigger?
    both
  • what type of test is the anger trigger?
    objective
  • what was confirmed in r v hatter?
    the break-up of a relationship will not normally constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character nor entitle the aggrieved party to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
  • what was confirmed in s55(6)?

    loss of control is not available if the defendant incited the victim to do the act that qualified as a trigger
  • what was confirmed in dawes?

    unless the defendant is seeking an opportunity to use violence, loss of control is still applicable
  • what was confirmed in s55(6)(c)?
    the fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded
  • what was confirmed in r v clinton?
    where there is no other qualifying trigger, sexual infidelity is excluded but, along with other triggers, it could be considered
  • what is the third element?
    a person of the defendant’s sex and age, with a normal level of tolerance and self-restraint, in the circumstances of the defendant, would have reacted in the same or similar way
  • what type of test is element 3?
    largely objective but considers circumstances of the defendant
  • what is confirmed in s54(3) in subsection (1)(c)?
    the reference to ‘the circumstances of the defendant’ is a reference to all of the defendant’s circumstances other than those whose only relevance to the defendant’s conduct is that they bear on the defendant’s general capacity for tolerance or self-restraint
  • what was confirmed in r v rejmanski?

    mental disorders are not considered circumstances of defendant where it only affects self-control
  • what was confirmed in r v asmelash?
    intoxication is ignored in relation to element 3