7/28/2019 Criminal Homocide 1 - Voluntar

1/2

1.Actus Reus for

Murder

Unlawful killing of another human being

under the Queen's peace with malice

aforethought.

2. Coroners and

Justice Act

2009 ss 54-56

Loss of Control.

Loss of control is a new defence for murder.

Replaces defence of provocation.

If defence operates, D is guilty of

manslaughter not murder s54(7).

Burden of proof: s54(5)&(6) on prosecution.

Judge: "common law heritage is irrelevant".

Have to explain why using other cases.

R v Clinton, Parker & Evans.

3. Diminished

Responsibility

Factors

s2(1)(a) Substantial impairment of D's

ability:

-to understand the nature of his conduct

-to form a rational judgement

-to exercise self-control.

4. DiminishedResponsibility.

CJA 2009 s52Amended the Homicide Act 1957 s2.

As for loss of control if established, D guilty

of voluntary manslaughter.

D to prove defence on balance of

probabilities HA s2(2)

5. Elements of

Diminished

Responsibility

HA s2(1)

-Was D suffering from an abnormality of

mental functioning (R v Byrne)

-Arising from a recognised medical

condition

Which substantially impairs the defendant's

ability to do certain things?-And which provides an explanation for Ds

acts and omissions in killing?

note: could be physical or psychological

condition.

6. Elements

required for

loss of control

Did the defendant kill another person as a

result of losing control? S54(1)(a)

Did the loss of control have a qualifying

trigger? S54(1)(b)

Might "another person" have acted in the

same or similar way? S54 (1)(c)

7. Events that

CANNOT be aqualifying

trigger

Fear of violence caused by something D

incited to be done: s55(6)(a) (but note R vJohnson - it might be ok so long as it wasn't

intended to incite an excuse to commit

murder.)

A sense of being seriously wronged caused by

something D incited to be done: s55(6)(b)

Sexual infidelity: s55(6)(c)

Clinton: usually sexual infidelity will be

impossible to isolate from other

circumstances in which case it may be

considered as contributing.

8. Law

Commission

report no.

304

Gives examples of when the factors in s2(1)(a)

might apply.

-boy who plays too many video games kills

another.

-woman kills husband to rid world of his sins.

-mentally sub-normal boy follows brothers

instructions.-man gives in to killing wife after much

begging.

-a man thinks the devil takes control over him.

9. Mens Rea

for Murer

Intention to kill/cause GBH (R v Vickers)

10. Qualifying

Trigger 1

R v Martin [shot burglar running away]

Fear of subjective violence s55(3)

Did D subjectively fear serious violence from

the victim aimed at him or another?

11. Qualifying

trigger 2 forLoss Of

Control

S55(4)(a): Things said or done that "constitute

circumstances of an extremely grave character"AND

S55(4)(b) : Which "caused D to have a

justifiable sense of being seriously wronged."

Objectively judged: Clinton (i.e. an honour

killing is not ok)

12. R v

Ahluwalia

[battered

wife]

Husband told her their marriage was over and

wanted her out so his gf could move in . He

demanded 200 for a hone bill, threatened to

beat and brandish her. She put petrol (that she

had bought recently) on his bed and set it

alight. He died. First trial this showed

planning so was guilty but appealed.s54(2) "it does not matter that the loss of

control was not sudden" (but the longer the

delay the weaker the defence.

s54(4): There is no defence if D "acted in a

considered desire for revenge".

13. R v Byrne

[strangled

girl in a

YMCA]

Abnormal state of mind.

Court of Appeal: "state of mind so different

from that of ordinary human beings that the

reasonable man would term it abnormal"

14. R v Clinton

[killed wife]

Clinton was going through a hard time with

his wife. They had a trial separation. He went

on Facebook and saw her posting things toanother man and on a different site saw

pictures of her and the other man naked. He

confronted her and she denied it. When he

produced the evidence she admitted everything

including several a ffairs she had had. She

went into graphic detail. He hit her with a bat

and strangled her with a string, using the bat

as a tourniquet.

Criminal Homocide 1 - Voluntary ManslaughterStudy online at quizlet.com/_9tnok

7/28/2019 Criminal Homocide 1 - Voluntar

2/2

15. R v Cocker [killed

wife with pillow]

Wife was very ill and kept asking to be killed. He grabbed a pillow to kill her but thought she had changed mind

stopped. Then she pulled the pillow back over her face and he finished killing her. Because he paused to think he

showed control.

16. R v Deitchmann

[killed man when

drunk]

[Deitchmann very sad about death of his aunt and savagely killed a man when drunk]

"It is impossible for the jury to ignore the effect of alcohol and decide whether the defendant, sober, would still

have killed as a result of a mental abnormality."

17. R v Fenton [shot

people, stole policecar]

Hate, jealousy or bad temper do not come within s2 Homicide Act.

18. R v Morhall "normal degree of tolerance and self restraint" in S54(1)(c) should be a sober person. However, if is drunk and

there are other circumstances it might be ok.

19. R v Richens [Dover

college kid]

Loss of control need not be complete

20. R v Simcox impairment must be more than trivial or minimal.

21. R v Stewart Jury to Consider:

-Extent/Seriousness of the defendant's dependency

-Extent to which ability to control drinking reduced

-Whether he was capable of abstinence

-If so, for how long-Whether he was choosing for some particular reason to get drunk or to drink more than usual.

22. R v Tandy

[alcoholic killed

daughter]

[Killed 11 year old daughter after she said her stepfather had abused her]

Decided that because she could stop drinking (at 9/10th of the bottle) her alcoholism had not injured her brain

and her drinking was not involuntary.

23. S55 CJA 2009 Two qualifying triggers identified. The facts of a particular case may mean that both qualifying triggers apply:

s55(5)

24. The reaction of

"another person"

Might a hypothetical person have acted in the same or similar way? S54(1)(c)

"A person of D's age and sex"

"in the circumstances of D"

"with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint"

(Contrast with DPP v Camplin - these cases said only characteristics related to the provocation can be taken intoaccount.)