4: Voluntary Manslaughter Flashcards
(20 cards)
what type of defence is voluntary manslaughter
special and partial defence to murder
two partial defences to murder
- diminished responsibility
- loss of control
result of successfully pleading the partial defence of diminished responsibility or loss of control
- verdict of ‘not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter’
- murder drops down to voluntary manslaughter
- judge does not have to pass a life sentence (mandatory for murder)
what is diminished responsibility charged under
Homicide Act 1957
as amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
standard of proof for diminished responsibility
balance of probabilities
define diminished responsibility
D kills V whilst suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which
(a) arose from a recognised medical
condition
(b) substantially impaired D’s ability to
- understand the nature of his conduct
- form a rational judgment
- exercise self-control
(c) provides an explanation for Ds actions and omissions in doing or being party to the killing
explain abnormality of mental functioning
include case
in R v Byrne Lord Parker classes ‘abnormality of mind’ as a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal
explain ‘arising from a recognised medical condition’
- DR much wider scope than insanity as it allows for irresistible impulses.
- covers both physical and psychiatric conditions.
- jury has to be satisfied that Ds abnormality arose from a medical condition.
- must be appropriate medical evidence
‘arising from a recognised medical condition’: examples and cases
- Byrne: sexual psychopathy
- Seers: Chronic depression
- Ahluwalia: Battered woman’s syndrome
- Dietschmann: depression, adjustment disorder
- Wood: Alcohol dependency syndrome
- Cambell: Epilepsy
- Smith: Pre-menstrual tension
- Reynolds: Post Natal depression
- Conroy: Autism spectrum disorder
- Martin: Paranoia
- Bradley: PTSD
- diabetes
- sleep disorder
- schizophrenia
- personality disorders
explain ‘substantial impairment of mental responsibility’
include cases
- question of whether the impairment was substantial is one of degree and one for the jury to decide (Byrne)
- substantial does not mean the abnormality totally impairs Ds mental responsibility but it must not be trivial or minimal. it is something in between (Lloyd)
- Golds confirmed the Lloyd interpretation of substantial: “needed to be something more than trivial”
- the abnormality of mental functioning must have substantially impaired Ds ability to do one or more of three things:
(1) understand the nature of his conduct (eg automatic state)
(2) form a rational judgment (eg paranoia or BWS - Aluwalia)
(3) exercise self-control (eg unable to control perverted desires - Byrne)
explain ‘provides an explanation for Ds acts or omissions’
- D has to prove that the abnormality of mental functioning provided an explanation for his acts/omissions in doing or being a party to the killing
- Ds abnormality must cause the killing; doesnt have to be the only factor or main factor which caused D to do or be involved with the killing, but must be a significant contributory factor
explain how intoxication applies to diminished responsibility
include cases
(a) if D is suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning and is intoxicated at the time of the killing
- jury should disregard intoxication and decide whether the abnormality of mental functioning alone substantially impaired Ds ability (Egan, Dietschmann)
- Voluntary intoxication is not capable of being relied upon to found diminished responsibility on its own (Dowds)
(b) if Ds long term alcohol/drug abuse has led to a recognised medical condition (eg alcohol or drug dependency syndrome) which causes an abnormality
- Wood: ADS could be considered a possible source of abnormality of mental functioning by the jury. If this is the case, jury considers the effect of any alcohol consumed by D as a result of his dependency.
- Stewart:
• was D suffering an abnormality of mental functioning?
• if so, was Ds abnormality cause by the ADS?
• if so, did this substantially impair Ds mental responsibility?
what is loss of control charged under?
- old law, it was ‘provocation’.
- changed to loss of control and is now charged under ss 54-55 Coroners & Justice Act 2009
Define Loss of Control
include section
s54(1)
Where D kills or is party to the killing of V, D is not to be convicted of murder if:
(a) Ds acts and omissions in doing or being party to the killing resulted from Ds loss of self-control
(b) the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger,
(c) a person of Ds 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
Explain ‘Loss of Control’
- whether D lost self-control will be a matter for the jury to decide
- it has to be a total loss of control, a partial loss is insufficient
- Jewell the fact that D was unwell, sleeping badly, tired, depressed and ‘unable to think clearly’ was insufficient
- temper, anger or a reaction that is ‘out of character’ are not sufficient (Mohammed)
- does not have to be sudden
- but, the longer the delay between the qualifying trigger and the reaction of D, the less likely the partial defence will succeed (Ibrams & Gregory)
RESTRICTION: s54(4) : Partial defence will fail if the killing is motivated by a ‘considered desire for revenge’ (Ibrams, Baille)
what are the ‘qualifying triggers’ for Loss of Control
- s55(3) fear trigger
- s55(4) anger trigger
- s55(5) combination of fear/anger trigger
fear trigger
s55(3) : Ds loss of self-control was attributable to Ds fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person
- subjective test based on Ds genuine (even if unreasonable) fear (Ward)
- a fear of violence against people generally is insufficient (Martin, Ahluwalia)
RESTRICTION: s55(6) where D has been the one to incite violence, D cannot use the fear of violence as a qualifying trigger (Dawes)
anger trigger
s55(4)
Ds loss of self control was attributable to things done or said (or both) which:
(a) constituted circumstances or an extremely grave character (Hatter) and,
(b) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged (Zebedee)
- ‘justifiable’ indicates an objective test: what did D think and, did he have a right to think that way? Reasonable person test - jury has to conclude that D was in fact seriously wronged
objective test for loss of control
s54(1)(c) “person of the Ds 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 the D” (an objective test).
- (Camplin, Holley)
s54(3): “the circumstances of D” refers to all of D’s circumstances other than those that affect D’s general capacity for tolerance or self-restraint
- would be relevant if D subjected to years of abuse (Hill)
- not relevant if D has a short temper (Mohammed)
- would include sexual infidelity ONLY IF alongside other circumstances (Clinton)
General restrictions for loss of control
- s54(4) Revenge: partial defence will fail if the killing is motivated by a ‘considered desire for revenge’ (Ibrams, Baille)
- s55(6) Incitement: Ds fear of serious violence is to be disregarded if D incited violence, or incited something to be done or said to provide him with an excuse to use violence (s55(6)(a)) (Dawes) or that caused in him as sense of being seriously wronged (s55(6)(b))
-
s55(6)(c) Sexual infidelity: anything said or done in connection with sexual infidelity is to be disregarded
- However, Clinton confirms this will only apply when sexual infidelity is the only reason for the killing
