Loss of control
If D satisfied all elements of murder, he can claim the partial defences of Loss of Control (LC).
D is then guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
He can avoid the mandatory life sentence.
The jury decide.
LC comes from S.54 - 55 Coroners & Justice Act 2009.
It means a loss of self-control from a qualifying trigger and a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted the same.
Loss of self control is from 5.54(2).
It means for the moment D is not master of his own mind (Duffy).
It is more than being unable to think straight (Jewel).
Ds reaction in killing V does not need to be sudden.
In Ahluwalia, it would be sufficient for a 2 hour time delay from the trigger to killing V due to the build up of abuse over 15 years.
As long as it is not in revenge (Baillie).
Qualifying trigger can be fear from S.55(3) or anger from S.55(4) or both.
S.55(3) applies if D fears serious violence towards himself or an identified person.
In Lodge, V attacking D with a baseball bat was genuine fear.
In Ward, the violence aimed at Ds brother was allowed.
In Ahluwalia, Ds fear from her husband may be allowed now.
S.55(4) applies where things are said or done (or both) which constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character and cause D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
There is a very high threshold for what will be accepted.
For instance in Hatter, a relationship break up was not an extremely grave in Bowyer, Vs angry reaction towards D burgling his house, was not a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
In Zebedee, when D killed V due to his Alzheimer's and incontinence this was not a thing said or done.
There are some things that are not allowed as reasons for D killing V under S.55(6).
These are: D incited the violence (Dawes); D incited the things said/done; sexual infidelity.
Only add if relevant
In Clinton, D killed V because she told him she had affairs with 5 men then laughed and taunted him about suicide and not wanting their children. It was held that sexual infidelity alone could not be relied on but as there were other triggers alongside, LC was allowed.
Alone, this would fail but because it's alongside the other triggers above, it will be part of the LC.
Finally D must satisfy the objective test from S.54(1).
It can take account of age and gender (Camplin); sexual abuse (Hill); unemployment, epilepsy and depression (Gregson).
It cannot take account of short temper (Mohammed).
This is satisfied here because a person of ...sage and sex with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint, and in Ds circumstances of ...[enter all things from
QT]... would have reacted the same.
If D satisfied all elements of murder, he can claim the partial defences of Loss of Control (LC).
D is then guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
He can avoid the mandatory life sentence.
The jury decide.
LC comes from S.54 - 55 Coroners & Justice Act 2009.
It means a loss of self-control from a qualifying trigger and a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted the same.
Loss of self control is from 5.54(2).
It means for the moment D is not master of his own mind (Duffy).
It is more than being unable to think straight (Jewel).
Ds reaction in killing V does not need to be sudden.
In Ahluwalia, it would be sufficient for a 2 hour time delay from the trigger to killing V due to the build up of abuse over 15 years.
As long as it is not in revenge (Baillie).
Qualifying trigger can be fear from S.55(3) or anger from S.55(4) or both.
S.55(3) applies if D fears serious violence towards himself or an identified person.
In Lodge, V attacking D with a baseball bat was genuine fear.
In Ward, the violence aimed at Ds brother was allowed.
In Ahluwalia, Ds fear from her husband may be allowed now.
S.55(4) applies where things are said or done (or both) which constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character and cause D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
There is a very high threshold for what will be accepted.
For instance in Hatter, a relationship break up was not an extremely grave in Bowyer, Vs angry reaction towards D burgling his house, was not a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
In Zebedee, when D killed V due to his Alzheimer's and incontinence this was not a thing said or done.
There are some things that are not allowed as reasons for D killing V under S.55(6).
These are: D incited the violence (Dawes); D incited the things said/done; sexual infidelity.
Only add if relevant
In Clinton, D killed V because she told him she had affairs with 5 men then laughed and taunted him about suicide and not wanting their children. It was held that sexual infidelity alone could not be relied on but as there were other triggers alongside, LC was allowed.
Alone, this would fail but because it's alongside the other triggers above, it will be part of the LC.
Finally D must satisfy the objective test from S.54(1).
It can take account of age and gender (Camplin); sexual abuse (Hill); unemployment, epilepsy and depression (Gregson).
It cannot take account of short temper (Mohammed).
This is satisfied here because a person of ...sage and sex with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint, and in Ds circumstances of ...[enter all things from
QT]... would have reacted the same.
