manslaughter

Question 1

what are the three types of homicide offences

Answer 1

murder

voluntary manslaughter

involuntary manslaughter

Question 2

definition of murder

Answer 2

“To unlawfully kill another person under the Queen’s peace, and to do so intending to kill or cause GBH.”

Question 3

a result crime

Answer 3

either committed through positive action or omission

Question 4

defence of murder

Answer 4

Murder is the intentional act to end a human being’s life – there can be no defence applicable and there must be sufficient intent to have brought about the end of life or to cause serious harm

Question 5

voluntary manslaughter

Answer 5

Similarly to Murder, V MS is a common law offence with the AR the same as murder;

Unlawful conduct which causes the death of a person

Question 6

sentencing disparity

Answer 6

Where the judge is restricted to a mandatory life sentence (with a tariff amount) for Murder, this differs for MS

With MS, the judge has discretion of up to a maximum of life imprisonment

Question 7

voluntary vs involuntary

Answer 7

Voluntary MS
- D satisfies the AR and MR of murder – but can apply a partial defense which then reduces their liability

Involuntary MS
- D does not satisfy the MR for murder, but does for MS

Effectively, V MS involves a partial defence to murder, where Invol MS is actually a separate (but still Homicide) offence

Question 8

quirks of the english language

Answer 8

The use of the terms ‘involuntary’ and ‘voluntary’ are merely quirks of the language – the distinction between the two areas has nothing to do with the voluntariness of D’s conduct

All these offences require voluntary conduct (confusingly…)

Question 9

voluntary manslaughter

Answer 9

This can only arise when the D has satisfied the AR and MR of Murder

Once this is established, and once we’ve established that D has no complete defence, we move to the idea of a partial defence – therefore reducing to Vol MS

Question 10

loss of self control

Answer 10

• D kills while having lost their self control as a result of fear of serious violence or a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

Question 11

definition of loss of control in S54(1) Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Answer 11

Where a person kills, or is a party to the killing of another, D is not to be convicted of murder if…

a) D’s acts or omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D’s loss of self control
b) The loss of self control resulted from a qualifying trigger
c) A person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circs of D, might have

Common areas where this applies is D kills V upon seeing the V abusing D’s child, or where D reacts to personal abuse or bullying by killing

Question 12

from provocation to loss of control

Answer 12

LoC represents a statutory codification of the previous defence of provocation – a defence which has been plagued with issues of unfair treatment and uncertainty

Statute has helped develop this defence to something significantly more legally useful

Question 13

what are the two elements of loss of control

Answer 13

1) D’s role in the killing must have resulted from a loss of self control
2) D’s loss of self control must have been caused from a qualifying trigger:
- A fear of serious violence from V against D or another
- A thing said or done which constituted circumstances of an extremely grave nature, and caused D to have a justifiable sense of being wronged

Question 14

burden of loss of control

Answer 14

The legal burden within this case is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that one or more elements of these elements is absent

if the prosecution are unable to disprove the defence, the D will be liable for manslaughter and not for murder

Question 15

1. D must have lost self-control

Answer 15

The D’s conduct, which caused the death must have resulted from a lack of self control

This is subjective and asks whether D lost control, it is irrelevant whether a reasonable person would have done

Question 16

what is losing self control

Answer 16

Establishing what is meant by a loss of self control has not been well defined

The court adopted the terminology of “loss of ability to act in accordance with considered judgement or a loss of normal powers of reasoning.”

However, a long delay may imply that the trigger did not cause a loss of self control

Question 17

Jewell 2014 - loss of self control

Answer 17

D killed their workmate, V. There were perceived intimidation by V and D said that he was unable to sleep in the days before the murder and that he was ‘shutting down’

He claimed the death was done in a ‘dream like’ state

Charged with murder, and that there was planning which failed the loss of self control

Question 18

2. there must be a qualifying trigger

Answer 18

The loss of self control must have been caused by a qualifying trigger either;

1. A fear of serious violence
2. A sense of being seriously wronged by things said or done

Question 19

3. a person of normal tolerance and self restraint might have reacted similarly

Answer 19

The reaction of the D must have been ‘objectively’ understandable in that a person of D’s age and sex, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circs, D might have reacted in the same or similar way

It is not dependent on D having a good reason, it must be shown that anybody would have reacted within the same way

We aren’t explaining D’s rationale, but simply saying we can understand D’s conduct…there but for the grace of God…

The use of age and sex allows us to identify what the person of the same age and sex would

Question 20

diminished responsibility

Answer 20

D’s recognized medical condition led to an abnormality of mind which substantially impaired their capacity and caused them to kill

Another partial defence, reducing D’s liability from murder to Vol MS

For DR, D is claiming a partial excuse on the basis that they should not be held to the standard of a ‘normal’ person because of their medical condition

Question 21

difference between DR and insanity

Answer 21

Insanity looks for a defect of reason which completely undermines their ability to understand the nature or quality of their acts

With DR – the medical condition causes an abnormality of mind which substantially impairs his liabilities

Question 22

S52 coroners and justice act 2009

Answer 22

Defined broadly to mean “D’s abnormality of mind substantially impaired their mental responsibility”

a) D must demonstrate an abnormality of mental functioning
b) The abnormality must arise from a recognized medical condition
c) Abnormality must substantially impaired D’s ability to understand the nature of conduct, form a rational judgement, exercise self control
d) The abnormality must provide an explanation for the killing

Question 23

1. abnormality of mental functioning

Answer 23

A somewhat vague definition and relies on a link between medical conditions and some impact on their mind

The use of mental functioning rather than abnormality of mind leads to the medical/psych definitions – there must be some form of medical evidence

Question 24

2. arisen from a recognised medical condition

Answer 24

The courts are guided from WHO and the DSM 5 regarding what constitutes a medical condition

Both psychiatric and physical conditions are able to satisfy this element

Included

• Schizophrenia
• Depression
• Personality disorders

Not included

• Mercy killers, abused people who kill, developmental immaturity
• While developmental immaturity may be associated with a recognized condition such as autism – on itself it will not be applicable

Question 25

3. impaired D's mental ability to

Answer 25

=There are three ways in which D’s medical functioning have substantially impaired them to understand the nature of their conduct, form a rational judgement and exercise control

Question 26

understanding the nature of conduct

Answer 26

D medical condition must have substantially impaired their ability to understand their own conduct Aka, a child w/mental illness who plays violent games and then kills believing the victim will regenerate – they understand the physical cost, but not the cost to the victim

Question 27

to form a rational judgement

Answer 27

Where the abnormality substantially impairs the ability to form a rational judgment – such as mercy killing or an abused person who kills their abuser The pressure of the circumstances may impair the ability of the D to make an appropriate decision

Question 28

to exercise control

Answer 28

If D is incapable of living up to ‘normal self restraint’ and satisfies the rest of the requirements, the defence should be one of DR

Question 29

4. the abnormality must provide an explanation for the killing

Answer 29

There must be a causal link between the abnormality and the killing It is establishing that the abnormality of mental functioning and/or medical condition combined to affect their conduct and to cause them to kill Really difficult to prove, and relies on the defendant to prove it The difficulty comes as the D must prove the link as it was within their mind at the time The cause may be a substantial cause, and not a sole cause

Question 30

suicide pact

Answer 30

D kills V in pursuance of an agreement that they will both die together S4 Homicide Act 1957 Elements a) D must have agreed with V that they will die together b) D must intend, at the point of killing V, to die herself in line with the agreement

Question 31

fear of serious violence

Answer 31

They must be in dear of serious violence against themselves or another identified person This is a subjective requirement – D must react to a genuine fear of serious violence but it does not need to based on a true assessment of the facts – does not need to be reasonable

Question 32

self defence? fear of serious violence?

Answer 32

As well as helping with the remnants of the previous provocation defense, this helps remove gender bias in the form of reactions As well as this, it helps those whose conduct falls short of the requirements laid out in self defense

Question 33

wronged by something said or done

Answer 33

The second trigger is when D loses self control as a result of justifiable sense of being seriously wronged by something said or done which were of an extremely grave character This is a split objective/subjective test – subjective in that D must personally feel wronged and objective that the feeling must be objectively justifiable and the situation should be objectively grave

Question 34

exclusions

Answer 34

It cannot be triggered by trivial events such as a baby crying or a badly cooked steak Neither can it be caused by an objectional stance the D may have Or when the D incited the violence in some way Finally, the use of sexual infidelity as a trigger has become problematic

Question 35

sexual infidelity

Answer 35

Established in Clinton [2012] – it is not sufficient for there to be ‘something said or done’ does not apply in cases of sexual infidelity However, if there is something else which is the key reason with infidelity as a ‘side’ issue – then that is applicable

Question 36

summary

Answer 36

To satisfy the move from Murder to MS, both elements must be proved by the D on the balance of probabilities