bits of law

Main Section

Criminal | Offences Against The Person

Voluntary Manslaughter: Loss of Control

Revision Note | A Level

Download Adobe PDF Icon

Introduction

  • voluntary manslaughter is a category of unlawful homicide
  • D who would otherwise be guilty of murder but can plead one of two specific partial defences
  • partial defences: diminished responsibility and loss of control Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (CJA 2009)
  • if D successfully pleads partial defence he may be found guilty of manslaughter
  • manslaughter verdict allows more discretion in sentencing

Definition

  • loss of control replaces defence of provocation, found in the Homicide Act 1957 (HA 1957)
  • defined in S54 of Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (CJA 2009)

    • Coroners and Justice Act 2009

  • S54(1) Where a person (“D”) kills or is a party to the killing of another (“V”), D is not to be convicted of murder if-
    S54(1) (a) D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D's loss of self-control,
    S54(1) (b) the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, and
    S54(1) (c) 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 in the same or in a similar way to D.
    S54(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), it does not matter whether or not the loss of control was sudden.
  • D must prove they lost self control, there was a qualifying trigger and person of the same sex and age would have reacted in the same way in the circumstances

Loss of self control

  • D must prove loss of control at the time of killing
  • for provocation defence in HA 1957 the loss of control had to be sudden

    Ahluwalia (1992)

    • D killed V, her husband when he fell asleep, D suffering from Battered Woman’s Syndrome
    • on appeal provocation denied, no sudden loss
    • held D guilty of manslaughter, on grounds of diminished responsibility
  • no requirement for sudden loss of control under CJA 2009

Qualifying trigger

  • there must be a qualifying trigger, defined under S55 of CJA 2009
  • fear of violence was not sufficient under provocation

    Martin [2002]

    • D shot intruders at his home, one died and the other was seriously injured, found guilty of murder
    • fear of violence not sufficient for provocation
    • D proved to be suffering from longstanding paranoid personality disorder, a recognised medical condition, which substantially impaired his ability to form rational judgement
    • D’s conviction changed to manslaughter on basis of diminished responsibility
  • D does not have to fear violence from V, but cannot be a general fear, it must relate to a specific identified person

    Coroners and Justice Act 2009

    • S55(3): applies if D's loss of self-control was attributable to D's fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person.
  • things said or done may be a qualifying trigger

    Coroners and Justice Act 2009

    • S55(4): applies if D's loss of self-control was attributable to a thing or things done or said (or both) which-
      S55(4)(a)constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and
      S55(4)(b)caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
  • tests were not part of provocation and therefore narrows loss of control

    Doughty [1986]

    • D killed V, his 19 day old baby, as he was crying constantly
    • D’s conviction for murder was quashed under provocation
    • D unlikely to have a defence under loss of control, as difficult to prove he had a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
  • extremely grave character not defined as a subjective or objective test
  • Ds who suffer damage to property may argue this is a circumstance which is extremely grave character
  • explanatory notes state justifiable sense of being seriously wronged is an objective test

Excluded matters

  • sexual infidelity explicitly excluded

    Coroners and Justice Act 2009

    • S55(6)(c): the fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded.
  • previously argued provocation allowed an unfair defence for jealous partners who killed after discovering an affair

    Humes (Attorney General Reference No. 95) [2002]

    • D killed V his wife, D argued reason was he found out she had affair
    • no trial as D plead guilty, provocation was accepted, sentenced to 7 years
    • Attorney General appealed sentence, Court of Appeal confirmed provocation defence and sentence appropriate
  • revenge explicitly excluded

    Coroners and Justice Act 2009

    • S54(4): Subsection (1) does not apply if, in doing or being a party to the killing, D acted in a considered desire for revenge.
  • as provocation required a sudden loss of control, if D had time to consider revenge, defence unavailable

    Ibrahms and Gregory (1981)

    • Ds repeatedly terrorised by V, ex boyfriend of one D, Ds reported latest incident to police on 5 October
    • on 10 October Ds attacked V, V died of his injuries, Ds convicted of murder
    • Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, as no sudden loss of control
  • if sudden loss of control was present and element of revenge, then provocation was available

    Baillie (1995)

    • D killed V, his son’s drug dealer, after finding out V made threats towards his son
    • trial judge refused to allow provocation to be put to the jury
    • Court of Appeal found judge had erred, there was evidence of provocation so was for jury to decide if D was suffering loss of control too
  • unclear if loss of control available if an element of revenge, under CJA 2009

Standard of self control

  • sex and age are relevant characteristics to be considered, codified in CJA 2009

    Coroners and Justice Act 2009

    • S54(1)(c) : 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 in the same or in a similar way to D.
  • principle previously developed under case law

    Camplin [1978]

    • D, a 15 yr old boy, killed V, D was sexually abused by V
    • jury to judge by standards of a reasonable adult, D convicted of murder
    • House of Lords allowed more subjective test, taking into account D's age, D’s conviction substituted for manslaughter

    Attorney General for Jersey v Holley [2005]

    • Defendant killed V, his girlfriend with an axe, both were alcoholics
    • held test is objective, where none of D’s characteristics relevant, except for sex and age

Circumstances of the defendant

  • sex and age are the only characteristics can be considered in relation to loss of control
  • other circumstances D may be taken into account in deciding whether a person with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint may have reacted in the same way
  • also the rule under provocation

    Gregson (2006)

    • D killed V, for taunting him about his unemployment, D suffered from epilepsy and depression
    • D’s epilepsy, depression and unemployment could be considered in relation to gravity of provocation, but not in relation to standard of self control expected

    Hill (2008)

    • D killed V, D had been sexually abused as a child and V tried to sexually assault D
    • D successfully argued provocation
This site is best viewed with style sheets (CSS) enabled and an up-to-date browser.