voluntary manslaughter (loss of control)

• Voluntary Manslaughter (Loss of Control)


  Partial defence to murder where the defendant has committed the actus reus for unlawful killing and had the necessary mens rea for murder, but can put forward a reason why the murder was committed
• Loss of Control


  Partial defence to murder, available under Section 54(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
• Loss of Control


  Only available for a charge of murder, if proven successful the defendant will be charged with voluntary manslaughter rather than murder.

  When determining if there has been a 'loss of control', it needs to be shown that:

  • The defendant lost self-control.
  • There was a 'qualifying trigger'
  • Another person of the same sex and age would have reacted the same as the defendant.
• 1 Loss of Self-Control

  There has to be a total loss of self-control

  Case - R v Gurpinar - evidence from a 'loss of self-control' could be:

  • Where the defendant has lost their ability to maintain their actions in accordance with considered judgement.
  • Where the defendant lost their normal powers of reasoning.
  • Where the defendant's behaviour was atypical, and they normally would not have acted that way.
• Qualifying Triggers for Loss of Control

  Section 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009

  • Fears Serious Violence - s.55(3)
  • Things Done or Said that caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged - s.55(4)
  • Excluded Matters
• 2 Qualifying trigger - Fear of Serious Violence (s. 55(3))

  The defendant must fear there will be violence from the victim against themselves or another person (e.g., a child or relative).

  This is a subjective test. This means that the fear of violence does not need to be reasonable, rather the loss of control came from genuine fear.

  However, this genuine fear needs to happen in the present. A fear that the victim might use violence in the future is unsufficient.
• 2 Qualifying trigger - Things Done or Said (s. 55(4))

  For a defendant to rely on things done or said, these must be:

  • Things of an 'extremely grave character',
  • which caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.

  The jury will decide whether the sense of being seriously wronged was justified.

  Case - R v Doughty
• 2 Qualifying Trigger- Excluded matters (s.55(6))

  
  

  • Sexual infidelity
  • Revenge
• 2 Qualifying trigger - Excluded Matters (s. 55(6))

  Sexual Infidelity is Disregarded as a Defence (s. 55(6)(c))

  Case - R v Clinton
• Excluded Matters (s. 54(4))


  Considered Desire for Revenge is Disregarded as a Defence.

  If the defendant had time to consider revenge, then the defence of loss of control cannot be used.

  Case - R v Ibrams and Gregory
• 3 A Person of the Same Sex/Age, in the Same Circumstances, Would Have Reacted the Same as the Defendant

  An objective test under s. 54(1)(c)

  The jury will determine whether a normal person, in the same circumstances of the defendant, would have reacted in the same way as the defendant did.

  This means that if the jury concludes a normal person may have lost control, but reacted differently, then the defence could fail.

  Case - R v Van Dongen
• 1 Loss of control

  The loss of self-control does not have to be sudden (e.g. in domestic violence situations)

  Case - R v Ahluwalia
• 2 Qualifying trigger - Fear of Serious Violence (s. 55(3))


  Under s.55(6)(a), if the defendant has incited the violence as an excuse to use force, then they cannot rely on there being a qualifying trigger.

  Case - R v Dawes
• Voluntary manslaughter - Sentencing

  The judge can impose a lesser sentence of up to a maximum life sentence.