voluntary manslaughter

what is provocation?

originally a common law defence, given statutory recognition in s54 Homicide Act 1957 - changed to loss of control by s52 of The Coroners and Justice Act 2009

what is diminished responsibility?

defence introduced by s2 Homicide Act 1957 and amended by s52 of The Coroners and Justice Act 2009

how do partial defences work?

loss of control and diminished responsibility are only available to murder, if successful, reducing the charge to voluntary manslaughter - important as judge has discretion in sentencing.

what is voluntary manslaughter

when D has a partial defence to murder, as it was carried out when they were suffering from loss of control or diminished responsibility.

what must be proven for a defence of loss of control?

-D must have lost self-control

-the loss of self control had a qualifying trigger

-a person of D’s s3x/age with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint, in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same/similar way as D.

what is the burden of proof for vm?

it is for the prosecution to disprove + D must put forward sufficient evidence.

how is loss of self control decided?

matter for jury, must be a total loss, entitled to draw upon life experience.

temper/anger out of character not suff, must have ‘lost it’ or ‘snapped’

loss of control does not have to be sudden

what did r v jewell show

being unwell, sleeping badly, tired, depressed, and unable to think straight - not sufficient.

what is a qualifying trigger?

-D’s fear of serious violence from V against D or another, or

-things done or said which:

a)constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and

b)caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.

what is meant by fear of serious violence

subjective test, D must show loss of control due to genuine fear of sev violence, whether or not fear was reasonable. if D incited violence as an excuse, cannot rely on trigger (dawes).

what is meant by things done or said

objective question for jury - whether D’s sense of being wronged is justifiable. very high threshold for circumstances.

if thing done/said amounts to sexual infidelity, its disregarded in deciding if trigger is sufficient.

defence not allowed if D acted in ‘a considered desire for revenge’

what is meant by standard of self control?

objective test for jury - if D has personality disorder reducing general capacity for tolerance/self restraint, it is not to be considered. if a mental disorder has relevance to conduct otherwise, it may be. voluntary intoxication not to be considered.

if jury decides ‘normal person’ may lose control but not react in the same way, defence fails.

what is meant by diminished responsibility?

D was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition, which substantially impaired D’s ability to:

a) understand the nature of their conduct

b) form a rational judgement, or

c) exercise self-control

and the impairment provides an explanation for D’s conduct.

burden of proof for DR

is on the defendant to prove.

test for abnormality of mental functioning

D’s amf so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable person would term it abnormal

cause of abnormality

medical evidence must be presented at trial + jury decides if sufficient. incl. anxiety and alcohol dependency.

what is meant by ‘substantially impaired’

there is no definition, it is to be decided by the jury.

the abnormality doesnt have to be the only factor, but must be a significant contribution.

DR and intoxication

-effects of intoxication cannot be grounds for DR

-pre existing mental conditions can be DR if intoxicated - does not have to be sole cause.

-alcohol dependence syndrome can be abnormality as intoxication may be involuntary.