Loss of Control Essay Model Answer

• It might be possible for the defendant (state name), to raise Loss of Control as a partial-defence to Murder which is set out under s.54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. If successful, it will reduce their charge of murder down to voluntary manslaughter instead.
• The defendant under s.54(1) needs to prove 3 things:

  1. That they lost all self-control
  2. This was caused by a qualifying trigger
  3. A person of the defendant's sex and age and with normal tolerance and self-restraint would have acted in a similar way in these circumstances.
• Under s.54(1)(a), the defendant's action must have resulted from a loss of self-control. There is no definition of loss of control so this is left to the injury to decide based on the evidence. It is more than getting angry or losing their temper. The d must lose all ability to control themselves, they are so angry or upset they go into a 'blind rage' and not able to stop themselves (Jewell).
• Under s.54(2), it need not be sudden, this means if there is a time gap between the qualifying trigger and the d losing their control the d can still rely on loss of control (R v Dawes). However, the bigger the gap the less likely the d actually lost control and it is more likely to be premeditated, If it shown the d has a reasonable amount of awareness then this will result in them being unable to rely on LOC as illustrated in R v Cocker. Also, acts of revenge will result in the d being unable to rely on LOC as per s.54(4).
• Next, the jury must decide whether the LOC had a qualifying trigger under s.55(1)(b) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The first trigger under s.55 (3) is known as the fear trigger and considers whether he or another identifiable person was under a threat of serious violence. This means the d must have been scared that the v was going to use serious violence against himself or a person who is identifiable by name (R v Ward). The defence will not succeed where the d's fear of serious violence was incited by him, self-induced under s.55(5).
• The second qualifying trigger is under s.55(4) is where things said or done or both and whether they are of an extremely grave character which caused the d to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged as in Bowyer, Hatter and Zebedee. It has to be something so serious that it would cause a reasonable person to lose their self control.
• *Check if there is sexual infidelity, under s.55(6)(c) D cannot use V's sexual infidelity as a qualifying trigger. R v Clinton - sexual infidelity can be considered as a contributing factor when there are other qualifying triggers present*
• The third qualifying trigger is under s.55(5) and is a combination of both the fear and anger trigger.
• The final test is whether a person of the d's age and sex with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the same circumstances as the d would have reacted in the same way under s.54(3). Characteristics which bear on the d's general capacity for tolerance or self-restraint (e.g. bad temper or short fuse) cannot be taken into account.
• *Voluntary intoxication is not a relevant characteristic when it comes to deciding if the reasonable man would have reacted in the same or similar way to the D: Asmelash *
• To conclude, it would appear that the d satisfies/doesn't have to satisfy all the requirements for the partial defence of loss of control under s.54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. They will therefore have/not have their mandatory life sentence for murder removed and replaced with a discretionary sentence by the judge.