Loss of Control

Question 1

Homicide Act

Answer 1

Defined Provocation, replaced by Coroners & Justice Act

Question 2

s.56 Coroners and Justice Act

Answer 2

Abolished Provocation

Question 3

s.54 Coroners and Justice Act

Answer 3

Sets out circumstances in which defence applies to Murder

Question 4

s.55 Coroners and Justice Act

Answer 4

Defines more fully the qualifying triggers

Question 5

R v Jewell

Answer 5

Defined LoC as “The loss of ability to act in accordance with considered Judgement or Loss of normal powers of reasoning”

Question 6

s.54(2) Coroners and Justice Act

Answer 6

LoC need not be sudden

Question 7

s.54 Circumstances

Answer 7

• D fears serious violence
• Certain things said or done that amount to circumstances of an extremely grave charecter to cause d to have justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
• A combination of the two

Question 8

D fears serious violence

Answer 8

a. When D acts in order to thwart an anticipated attack
b. D overreacts to a percived imminent threat

Question 9

R v Pearson 1992

Answer 9

2 brothers jointly charged for murder of their father - who abused younger brother for 8years.
CoA allowed appeal as Jury should have been able to consider fathers words and action to younger brother as povoking older brother

Question 10

R v Ward

Answer 10

V attacked D’s brother, he killed him with a pickaxe.
Jury accepted D’s defence of LoC due to fear of serious violence against brother

Question 11

R v Zebedee

Answer 11

D claimed LoC after he killed 97year old father, who was suffering alzheimers and was incontinent and repeatedly soiled himself
Court held this did not amount to circusmtances of extremely grave character.
Convicted of Murder

Question 12

R v Clinton

Answer 12

D killed his wife after trial seperation upon discovering she was having an affair. He was clincially depressed, intoxicated and sucididal.
Claimed Loc over:
- She told him in graphic detail in which she had sexual relations with 5 men
- Laughed and taunted him over sucide websites
- she had told him she no longer wanted children
Trial Court held that defence not available as infidently is not a QT.
CoA quashed conviction and ordered retrial as defnce should have been put to jury
- held infidentily can be taken into account for things said or done

Question 13

s.54(1)(c) Factors

Answer 13

• Age and Sex
• Ordinary level of tolerance and self-restraint
• In the Circumstances of D would they have acted in same way

Question 14

R v Camplin

Answer 14

D was 15yr old boy that killed 50yr old who had been sexually absuing him.
Trial judge ordered jury to hold him to standard of adult man
HoL stated that he should be held to the standard of a reasonable 15yr old boy

Question 15

R v Rejamanski

Answer 15

D was verteran suffering from PTSD and was provoked by V.
D lost temper - killing V
CoA held PTSD could be considered but was no sufficent in this case

Question 16

R v Mohammed

Answer 16

D was devout Muslim who after finding daughter in bed with man
Stabbed her 19 times
Claimed defence of Provocation on religious grounds
CPS gave evidence he was violent man
Temper cannot be taken into account

Question 17

R v Asmalesh

Answer 17

Court held being intoxicated does not void LoC defence but will be held to standard of sober person

Question 18

R v Thornton

Answer 18

D was abused spouse who after an incident killed spouse
CoA held that minor incident could act as last straw and trigger a Loss of Control
Aquitted