FO: Loss of control

Question 1

Define loss of control

Answer 1

LOC is detailed under Ss54 and 55 of the coroners and justice act 2009, this is a special and partial defence to murder which will reduce liability to the defence where the killing is as a result of a loss of control cause by a qualifying trigger.

Question 2

Explain LOC under R v Jewell

Answer 2

The LOC doesn’t need to be sudden, instead it can be a slow burn reaction,, however acting out of anger or a reaction out of character will not suffice. The D must have ‘lost it’ or ‘snapped’ (R v Jewell)

Question 3

Explain the qualifying triggers

Answer 3

There are two qualifying triggers the fear trigger and the anger trigger

Question 4

QT: Explain S55(3) Fear of serious violence + Case

Answer 4

The D must fear serious violence from the V to themselves or another identifiable person. This is a subjunctive test and the D must show that they had lost control due to a genuine fear where its reasonable or not
(R V Ward)

Question 5

QT: Explain S55(4) Things said or done + case

Answer 5

Anything said or done which constitutes to an extremely grave character and causes the D a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. This is an objective question for the jury.
(R V Zebedee)

Question 6

Explain S55(5)

Answer 6

The qualifying trigger can be a combination of both of the above triggers.

Question 7

Excluded Matters: Sexual Infidelity S55(6)(c) + case

Answer 7

Sexual infidelity must be disregarded as a thing said or done to the D unless the sexual infidelity forms art of the wider context of the things said and done.
(R v Clinton)

Question 8

Excluded Matters: Revenge S54(4)

Answer 8

Acting out of a considered desire for the revenge can never be regarded as a loss of self control.
The D is also unable to incite violence as an exercise to lose control

Question 9

Explain Standard of self control S54(3) + case

Answer 9

A person of the D’s, sex and age with an ordinary level of tolerance and self restraint and in the circumstances of the D might have acted in the same or similar way.
(R v Rejmanski)

Question 10

Explain Intoxication + LOC + case

Answer 10

Voluntary intoxication cant be considered with in LOC. However if a sober person in the same circumstance as the D with a normal degree of tolerance and self resistance might have behaved in the same way when confronted with the qualifying trigger then the D may rely on the defence.
(R v Asmelash)