Loss of Control

Question 1

First step, introduce LoC.

Answer 1

D may be able to claim the partial defence of Loss of Control (LOC), making him guilty of voluntary manslaughter and avoiding the mandatory life sentence for murder. This is decided by the jury.

Question 2

Second step, define LoC.

Answer 2

LOC comes from S.54-55 Coroners & Justice Act 2009. It means a loss of self-control which had 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 in the same way.

Question 3

Third step, explain the first stage of assessing LoC. (total loss)

Answer 3

Firstly (S.54(2)) there must be a loss of self-control, which needs to be a total loss of control – a partial loss will not be sufficient. The Loss of self-control does not need to be sudden and can take into account a delay (Dawes), but the longer the delay the less likely it will be a loss of self control. Loss of self-control does not apply if D was seeking revenge. Jewell outlines that the defendant’s loss of self-control can be evidenced where he is incapable of ‘considered judgements or normal rational thoughts’. Here, there is/is not sufficient evidence that D had a total loss of self-control because….

Question 4

s.55 sets out the qualifying triggers.

Question 5

Fourth step, explain the second stage of assessing LoC. (fear)

Answer 5

S.55(3) states that ‘fear of violence’ is a qualifying trigger. D’s fear of serious violence from V can be against D (Lodge) or another identified person Ward, but it cannot be a general fear of violence. This is tested subjectively so D must prove his belief was genuine, but it does not have to be reasonable.

Here, S.55(3) applies as D feared serious violence towards … as a result of … As long as D genuinely feared violence, it does not need to be reasonable.

Question 6

Fifth step, explain the third stage of assessing LoC. (said or done)

Answer 6

S.55(4) sets out the ‘Things said or done’ trigger. This is, things said or done (or both) which must constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character, and cause D to have a justified sense of being seriously wronged. This is tested objectively (Zebedee) and the jury decide. Dawes tells us that the loss of control may come from the cumulative impact of events, but there is a very high threshold for what will be accepted here.

Here, S.55(4) applies as the things said / done were …, all of which do/do not constitute circumstances of extremely grave character, and D would/would not be right to feel seriously wronged and the reasonable man is likely to think the same.

Question 7

Sixth step, state objective test.

Answer 7

The ultimate objective test must be applied which asks, “would a person of D’s age and sex with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint, in the circumstances of D, have reacted in the same way?” D’s circumstances are everything except those things affecting his tolerance and self-restraint. It cannot be D’s bad temper (Mohammed). Voluntary intoxication is not a relevant circumstance (Asmelash).

Here, D’s circumstances are………………………, and a person of D’s age and sex, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint, would/would not have reacted in the same way because………………

 

Question 8

Concluding sentence?

Answer 8

The defence is therefore successful/unsuccessful and….(conclude on liability).