Loss of Control

• Loss of control


  Partial defence, reducing charge to voluntary manslaughter defined in section 54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009
• In order to plead successfully, the defendant must be able to demonstrate the following:

  1. A loss of self-control
  2. The loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger
  3. A person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.
• Loss of self-control

  • The defendant must be able to demonstrate, again on the balance of probabilities, that they had lost control at the time of the killing.
  • Sudden loss of control is not necessary to successfully plead the defence. - R v Ahluwalia
• R v Ahluwalia


  The defendant (under the previous partial defence of provocation) was unsuccessful in her plea, as a period of time had passed before she lost control, killing her husband, after he had threatened her. Under the new law, she would most likely be allowed the defence, providing that she could persuade a jury that she had not acted in a considered desire for revenge.
• Qualifying Triggers

  • A qualifying trigger is the reason why the defendant killed the victim.
  • There are two qualifying triggers allowed by this partial defence, set out in section 55 of the C&JA 2009.
• The 2 Qualifying triggers

  • Firstly, D’s fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person. 
  • Secondly, a thing or things done, or said, or both, which (a) constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character, and (b) cause D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. 
  • Only one of the two qualifying triggers needs to be proved.
• Reasonable man test.

  • Finally, to plead the defence successfully, the defendant must show that the following “reasonable man” might also have reacted in the same or a similar way:
  • a person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint, and in the circumstances of D.
• R v Hill


  Having a history of abuse can be a circumstance for the reasonable man test
• • Voluntary intoxication is not allowed as a circumstance, as demonstrated in R v Asmelash.
  • However, if the defendant would have acted in the same way whilst sober, then the defence should still be available to the defendant.