voluntary manslaughter

Question 1

what are the two special defences to murder and what do they do

Answer 1

1. loss of control, 2. diminished responsibility

- both defences will reduce a murder sentence to voluntary manslaughter and will avoid a mandatory like sentence

Question 2

what act introduced LOC and diminished responsibility and what act amended them

Answer 2

• homicide act 1957 introduced
• coroners and justice act 2009 amended diminished responsibility and replaced the provocation defence with loss of control

Question 3

what are the four things that must be proven for diminished responsibility and what act is this in

Answer 3

s52 of coroners and justice act states that must

1. have an abnormality of mental functioning
2. from a recognised medical condition s52(1)a
3. substantilly impairing d’s ability s52(1)b
4. this must provide an explanation for d’s actions s52(1)c

Question 4

why are the defences called special

Answer 4

because they only apply to a defendant who has killed

Question 5

what is the leading case for abnormality of mind and what did this tell us and who will decide if d has abnormality of mental functioning

Answer 5

r v byrne. sexual psychopath killed young woman. gave us the objective test for whether a defendant has abnormality of mind. a ‘state of mind so different for normal human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal’.
-the jury will decide if a defendant has abnormality of mental functioning

Question 6

how do the courts define recognised medical conditions and what medical conditions will count

Answer 6

-the coroners and justice act doesnt tell us what recognised medical conditions are. medical evidence will be required by the courts to prove that someone has a recognised medical condition. they can be mental conditions such as depression or anxiety or physical such as brain damage and epilepsy. alcohol dependency is a recognised mental condition that can qualify for the defence.

Question 7

what is the case for recognised medical condition

Answer 7

-ahluwalia, d has suffered six years of abuse from her husband before finally killing him. she was convicted with murder but on second appeal they came up with the battered woman syndrome.

Question 8

what are the three things that must be substantially impaired by the abnormality of mental functioning

Answer 8

ability to…

• form rational judgement
• exercise self control
• understand the nature of their conduct

Question 9

what is the leading case for substantial impairment and what did this tell us

Answer 9

r v Lloyd. the word substantial does not necessarily mean that there ahs to be total impairment. lloyd gave a three step test to decide if someone was substantially impaired.

• jury should approach the word substantial in a common sense way
• more than a trivial degree of importance
• can be less than total impairment

Question 10

what is meant by the substantial impairment having to work as an explanation for the killing

Answer 10

-has to be a significant factor for the killing but doesn’t have to be the only factor

Question 11

what is a leading case for intoxication relating to diminished responsibility

Answer 11

• r v dowds, d murdered his gf whilst intoxicated. he appealed on the grounds that his intoxication should have been presented to the jury as to provide a potential defence for diminished responsibility. his appeal was rejected because intoxication is not diminished responsibility.

Question 12

what is the case for when a defendant is intoxicated but also has a recognised medical condition

Answer 12

-r v dietschmann, d suffered from severe depression and was intoxicated when he attacked his victim. it didn’t matter that he was intoxicated because his depression was still caused the substantial impairment which was a significant factor in causing the murder. thus he was allowed the defence.

Question 13

what is the case for intoxication because of alcohol dependency.

Answer 13

-r v stewart, the courts said that if their was an abnormality of mental functioning caused by alcohol dependency syndrome than the defence would be allowed

Question 14

what three things have to be proven for loss of self control

Answer 14

1. that they lost self control (s.54)
2. as a result of a qualifying trigger (s.55)
3. and a person the same age and sex as d would have acted in the same way as d or a similar way

Question 15

what is a case for the measures that have to be proven for LOC

Answer 15

-goodwin told us that all three measures have to be proven for LOC

Question 16

what does the coroners and justice act 2009 say about loss of self control

Answer 16

• s54(2) says that loss of control does not need to be sudden and there can be a gap between qualifying trigger and LOC.
• s54(4)says that d’s loss of self control will not be valid if they are acting out of a desire for revenge

Question 17

what is the case for a delay before LOC and for a desire for revenge

Answer 17

• delay= dawes. the courts said that ‘a reaction to circumstances of extreme gravity may be delayed’
• revenge= ibrams and gregory. defendants killed an ex partner who was terrorising them. could not be LOC as it was revenge.

Question 18

what is the recent case involving evidence for losing self control

Answer 18

-jewell, d drove to v’s house and shot him twice, killing him. he tried to plead LOC but there was overwhelming evidence that it was a planned execution therefore the defence was not allowed

Question 19

how does the coroners and justice act define a qualifying trigger in which sections of the act

Answer 19

• s.55 says a loss of self control is caused by a qualifying trigger if subsection 3, 4 or 5 applies
• (3) if loss of self control was attribute to d fearing serious violence
• (4) if d’s LOC was attributable to things done or said that (a) constituted circumstances of extremely grave character (b) gave d a justifiable sense if being seriously wronged
  (5) the loss of self control was attributable to a combination of subsection 3 and 4.

Question 20

what does s55(6) say about determining whether loss of self control had a qualifying trigger

Answer 20

(a) d’s fear of serious violence is to be disregarded if it was caused by a thing that d incited for the purposes of providing an excuse to use violence
(b) a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged is not valid if d incited the thing to be done or said for the purposes of providing an excuse to use violence
(c) the fact that a thing done or said is sexual infidelity means that it will be disregarded

Question 21

what does the coroners and justice act say about fear of serious violence and what is a leading case for this

Answer 21

• the defendant does not have to fear serious violence from the V, fearing violence from another named person will still be valid. however, it cannot be a general fear of violence.
• r v ward saw a defendant successfully plea LOC. however his fear of serious violence was not against himself but his brother. thus this case established that a defendant could fear serious violence on behalf on another person.

Question 22

why did the coroners and justice act introduce the two step test for things done/ said and what is a case that proves why change was necessary

Answer 22

• means that LOC is narrower than the old defence of provocation meaning that less defendants will plead it successfully
• R v doughty, d killed his baby because the baby was crying. his conviction of murder was quashed because COA said the baby crying should have been presented to the jury as potential provocation

Question 23

what is a case for relationships and things done / said of extremely grave character and causing d to feel a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

Answer 23

-r v hatter said the break up of relationships will not usually constitute for extremely grave character.

Question 24

what is a case for the old defence of provocation which helped in the creation of LOC

Answer 24

DPP v camplin. the d was a 15 year old boy who killed a middle aged man after he raped him and laughed at him. the judge told the jury to compare the boy to a reasonable adult. now he would be compared to somebody of the same age.

Question 25

what type of test is the standard of self control

Answer 25

-objective. the jury will compare d to somebody of the same age and sex. his personal characteristics will not be considered but personal circumstance may be considered.

Question 26

what is a case that proved the importance of having medical evidence

Answer 26

Jama