crim - partial defences

two defences to murder

loss of control

diminished responsibility

defence of loss of control authority

S.54 CJA 2009

defence of loss of control definition

established if D kills another when D lost self control because of a qualifying trigger and a reasonable person, in the same circumstance, would have acted in the same way

loss of control burden of proof

evidential burden on D - D must raise enough evidence for a court to consider the defence 

legal burden of prosecution - they must prove beyond reasonable doubt the defence doesn’t apply 

elements of loss of control defence

1. D must have lost control

2. D’s loss of control must be attributed to a qualifying trigger

3. A hypothetical person in the same situation would have acted in the same was as D

qualifying triggers

. fear of serious violence s.55(3)

. sense of being seriously wronged s.55(4)

2 exclusions to sense of being wronged as a qualifying trigger

Exclusion 1: where the thing said or done was induced by D’s own conduct for the purpose of providing D with an excuse to use violence, D can not rely on loss on control defence

Exclusion 2: sexual infidelity can not be a qualifying trigger

defence of diminished responsibility authority

s.2 Homicide Act

defence of diminished responsibility

D kills another because D’s medical condition causes an abnormal of mental functioning that substantially impairs D’s ability

diminished responsibility - burden of proof 

. rests of D

. D only has to prove the defence on the balance of probabilities 

elements of diminished responsibility defence

1. D has an abnormality of mental functioning

2. such abnormality has arisen from a recognised medical condition

3. such abnormality has impaired D to:

• understand the nature of the conduct

• form a rational judgement

• exercise self control

4. such abnormality explains the killing