1
Q
Key elements of Loss of control
A
- set out S.54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 - partial defence to murder
lose self control? - Was the loss of control attributable to a qualifying Trigger? s.55
- ” Normal person Test”
- will the defence succeed?
2
Q
what is loss of control?
A
- Partial defence to Murder
- S.54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009
- Burden of proof on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that loss of control does not apply
3
Q
Did D lose self-control?
A
- loss of ability to act in accordance with considered judgment/loss of normal powers of reasoning? - Jewell
- Loss of control needs not be sudden s.54(2)
- Must not be out of a desire for revenge s.54(4)
- must not be self-induced - Dawes
4
Q
Was the loss of self-control attributable to a Qualifying trigger?
A
- s.55
- Fear = s.55(3)
- Anger = s.55(4)
5
Q
- Fear = s.55(3) = QT
A
- Fear of serious violence against D or another identified person - Ward (against another)
6
Q
s.55(4) - anger QT
A
- extremely grave character
- giving a justified sense of being seriously wronged
- Zebedee (neither satisfied) , - Hatter ( relationship break up will not constitute circumstances of grave character)
- Sexual infidelity is exclude = Clinton
7
Q
“Normal Person” test
A
- a person with D’s sex and age
- with a normal degree of tolerance and self-constraint
- in the circumstances of D
- Might have reacted the same way as d - (Christian (yes)) (Van Dongen (no))
8
Q
what is in the circumstances of D?
A
-Not those whose only relevance to D’s conduct is that they bear on D’s general capacity for D’s tolerance or self-restraint
(Rejmanski - Mental illness (can count as long as not bear on general capacity but in this case no)
(Asmelash - voluntary intoxication doesn’t count) (Clinton - sexual infidelity does count)
9
Q
Diminished Responsibility: key elements
A
- defined under s.2 Homicide Act 1957
- amended by s.52 Coroners and justice Act 2009
- abnormality of mental function
- arise from medical condition?
- substantial impairment to D’s mental ability
- Explanation for killing
- DR and intoxication
10
Q
DR: abnormality of mental functioning
A
- So different that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal
- Bryne
11
Q
DR: recognised medical condition
A
- include physical and psychological conditions
- depression (Dietschmann)
- Aspergers (Jama)
- paranoia (Martin)
- Battered spouses’ syndrome (Hobson)
- Alcohol Dependency syndrome (Wood)
- Psyhotic condition (golds)
- medical evidence decisive (brennan)
- exclude developmental immaturity and voluntary intoxication (Dowds)
12
Q
DR: substantial impairment
A
- 1/3 conditions from s.52(1A) must be met (d must be substantially impaired to…)
a) understand nature of D’s conduct
b) form rational judgment
c) exercise self control - it is for the jury to apply common sense to the meaning of the word ‘substantial’
- can range from trivial to total (Golds)
13
Q
DR explain killing
A
- cause D’s conduct or significant contributory factor
14
Q
Dr and intoxication
A
- intoxication alone doesn’t support defence (Dowds)
- ADS may support a defence -> if excessive alcohol caused brain damage/jury must consider effects of drink consumed as a result of dependency (Wood)
- Where D is drunk and is suffering from a pre existing condition AMF, jury may ignore voluntary drinking (Dietschmann)
