loss of control

• 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