defence of loss of control

• what is the statute for LOC?

  s54 of the coroners and justice act 2009
• what does s54 (1) state about the points needed to be followed?

  1 the d must have lost self-control

  2 there must be a qualifying trigger

  3 a person of the same sex and age would have reacted in the same way as the d in the same circumstances
• "defendant must have lost-control"

  s54 (2) of CAJA 2009

  LOC doesn't need to be sudden

  must be total loss

  r v jewell
• "qualifying trigger"


  s55 sets out the qualifying trigger

  fear trigger s55 (3)

  anger trigger s55 (4)

  combination s55 (5)
• fear trigger s55(3)


  d does not have to fear violence by the v

  fear of violence on another person must be identified

  r v ward

  s55 (6)(a): where the d has incited the violence they can't rely of the fear trigger

  r v Dawes
• anger trigger s55(4) 


  *objective test*: the circumstances are extremely grave and whether the d had a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

  r v zebedee
• what are the excluding matters of LOC?

  1 sexual infidelity can never be a qualifying trigger , however it could be considered intergral to and formed an essential part of the context

  2 defence is not allowed if considered for revenge
• normal standards of self control

  the d is expected to show a normal degree of tolerance and self-control
• circumstances of the d

  age and sex is considered in deciding the level of self-control expected from the d , other circumstances may be taken into consideration like mental illness and sexual abuse

  r v rejmanski
• voluntary intoxication and ds circumstances

  if a sober person in the ds circumstances with normal tolerance and self restraint might have behaved in the same way when confronted in the qualifying trigger the d may be able to use LOC
• Sufficient evidence


  the CAJA 2009 s54 (5) and (6) states with sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue with respect to the defence of LOC, the jury must assume the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not

  r v christian