Loss of Control

• voluntary manslaughter arises where both the AR and MR of murder are met but one of two possible special partial defences can be successfully pleaded. This is an indictable offence and has a discretionary life sentence.
• Here, X may raise the defence of Loss of Control to reduce their liability of murder to voluntary manslaughter. This defence is outlined in Section 54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
• Firstly, there needs to be an identifiable loss of control - S.54(1)(a)
• Section 54(2): The loss of Control does not need to be immediate/sudden. So there may be a time delay between the qualifying trigger and the D's reaction.

  • The longer the gap between the trigger and the killing, the less likely it will be for the defence to succeed. However, the D must be able to prove that he remained out of control throughout the relevant period (Baillie) - Although under the old law of provocation, Baillie can still assist on this point.
• Section 54(4): provides that Loss of Control does not apply if the D acted in a considered desire for revenge. Although decided under provocation, Ibrams and Gregory and Baillie illustrate this.
• Secondly, there needs to be a qualifying trigger - S.54(1)(b)
• Section 55 CJA identifies 3 qualifying triggers.
• 1. Section 55(3): The fear trigger - the D must be in fear of serious violence from the victim against himself or another identified person.
• 2. Section 55(4): The anger trigger which has 2 parts:

  • The tings said /done must amount to circumstances of an extremely grave character
  • D had a 'justifiable sense of being seriously wronged'.
• 3. Section 55(5): a combination of the anger and fear trigger.
• Restrictions on the triggers - Section 55(6):

  • The triggers will be disregarded if D himself incited(want to start something) to be said or done as an excuse to use violence - Dawes
  • if the 'thing' said or done constituted sexual infidelity (partner is cheating) it will now be disregarded under the Act.
• Thirdly, it must be proved that a person of the same age and sex (gender) with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint might have reacted in the same/similar way in the circumstance - S.54(1)(c)

  Although an old case of provocation, Mohammed shows how a person who has experienced circumstances as the D will be taken into account