Voluntary Manslaughter: Loss of control

What section and Act is the defence of Loss of Control outlined under, and what as?

s.54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

1. D’s acts or omissions resulted from a loss of control (s.54)(1)(a))

2. The loss of self control resulted from a qualifying trigger (s.54)(1)(b))

3. Would the normal person of the same sex, age and characteristics react in the same way? (s.54)(1)c))

1. Loss of control

• s.54(1)(a) - The killing must be as a result of the D’s loss of self-control

• s.54(2) - The loss of control does not have to be sudden. The time between the trigger and the killing does not have to be short. There can be a ‘cooling-off’ period

• s.54(4) - If a person acts out of revenge the defence will fail. There can be no evidence of premeditation

• Just losing temper is not sufficient. Jewell: D killed because he claimed he was ‘sleeping badly, tired and unable to think straight.’

2. The qualifying triggers

s.55 sets out the triggers that can be used for loss of control.

• s.55(3): D feared serious violence (fear trigger). It does not need to be a reasonable fear, just honestly thought. Lodge: D lost control after V hit him with a bat. Jury accepted he lost control in response to violence.

• s.55(4): A thing said/done by the defendant which is of ‘extremely grave character’ an causes the D to have a ‘justifiable sense of being seriously wronged’. Zebedee: D killed his father after he soiled himself. Conviction was upheld as the V’s action was not of extremely grave character.

• s.55(6): The trigger cannot be due to sexual infidelity alone. (Dawes: D went to the house of his ex so wasn’t provoked) However it can be combined with other triggers. (Clinton: V also joked about D’s depression so the anger trigger could be applied)

3. The normal person test

• Would a person of the D’s age and sex, with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint, and in the same circumstances of the D, react in the same or similar way?

• Although age and sex are explicitly mentioned, the ‘same circumstances’ can include the D’s mental health, history of abuse, etc. and these will be considered.

• The case of Amelash states that voluntary intoxication is not a valid circumstance.

• Rejmaski: D suffered from military PTSD and V provoked him with comments about his role in the army. HELD that although PTSD was a valid circumstance, in this case there was not enough evidence for it to be substantial.