Voluntary Manslaughter

Question 1

What is voluntary manslaughter?

Answer 1

The mens rea and actus reus for murder exists, but because of the circumstances allows a partial defence - avoids mandatory life sentence

Question 2

What are the 2 defences under voluntary manslaughter?

Answer 2

Loss of control and diminished responsibility

Question 3

Where were the 2 defences created originally?

Answer 3

Homicide Act 1957 (no longer refer to this)

These were provocation and diminished responsibility

Question 4

Why was the partial defence of provocation replaced?

Answer 4

Following the recommendations from the law commission in their report Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide 2006 - now replaced by Loss of Control under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Question 5

What did the act provide?

Answer 5

Explanatory notes designed to help in interpreting and applying the legislation

Question 6

Under S 54(1) CJA 2009 a D if not convicted of murder if… (LOC)

Answer 6

1 - killing resulted in his/her loss of self control
2 - Loss of self control has a qualifying trigger
3 - persons of D’s sex, age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint in the circumstances could have reacted in a similar/same way OBJECTIVE TEST

Question 7

What is the 1st stage in proving the defence of LOC?

Answer 7

S 54 (2) loss of control need not be sudden (Duffy case - old law - sudden and temporary)
S 54(4) excludes a D who acted in revenge - time and planning makes it difficult to convict using defence

Question 8

What is the 2nd stage in proving the defence of LOC?

Answer 8

S 55 explains meaning of qualifying triggers;
- A fear of serious violence from victim against the D or another identified person GENUINE FEAR (WARD 2012 WHO KILLED V AFTER V ATTACKED BROTHER) - JUDGED SUBJECTIVELY
- Things said or done of an extremely grave character that caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
OR COMBO OF BOTH

Question 9

What case gave the first interpretation of the meaning ‘loss of control’ where there was a fear of serious violence?

Answer 9

R v Dawes 2013 - V asleep on sofa with D’s wife (clothed), D stabbed V in neck - no serious violence???? Argued self-defence this did not work either

Question 10

In R v Dawes 2013 what did the COA say did not cross over into threshold of LOC?

Answer 10

Normal irritation or even serious anger

Question 11

What is the act unclear of in LOC?

Answer 11

Whether it is purely an objective test or whether the D will be judged against someone of the same age, sex etc

Question 12

What does S 55 (a) (b) exclude a trigger of in LOC?

Answer 12

Excludes a trigger if it was self-induced by D in the first place

Question 13

What does S 55 (c) exclude a trigger of in LOC?

Answer 13

Sexual infidelity - in R v Clinton 2012 (killed wife after evidence of infidelity on FB) the COA said although it is excluded as a trigger, it may be relevant to circumstances so jury should not totally ignore it

Question 14

What is the 3rd stage in proving the defence of LOC?

Answer 14

The standard of control - comparing D to the ordinary person OBJECTIVE TEST

Question 15

What ‘circumstances’ are relevant in proving the 3rd stage of LOC?

Answer 15

All except any that impact on D’s general capacity for tolerance and self-restraint (history of abuse could be taken into account in deciding whether the ordinary person would have reacted in the same/similar way)

Question 16

What did the COA hold in R v Asmelash 2013 in regards to LOC?

Answer 16

Defence has to be approached without reference to the D’s voluntary intoxication - drunkness is irrelevant

Question 17

What does the case Mohammed 2005 have to do with the defence of LOC and a persons mental state?

Answer 17

Reputation for being strict, violent and short tempered - should this be considered when compared to reasonable man? - Lord Justice Scott Baker said no

Question 18

What is the evaluation for LOC?

Answer 18

It is wider - replaces ‘sudden and temporary’ - help women in violent relationships as in R v Ahluwalia 1993 she was charged with murder as there was a ‘cooling off’ period

Defence specifically denies someone who acted in revenge - good standard for society

Difficult to prove someone attacked due to fear

D’s response to qualifying trigger is judged objectively

Not certain problems of provocation have been resolved, much depends on future cases

Question 19

Where was diminished responsibility created?

Answer 19

Originally in S2 Homicide Act 1957, amended in S52 CJA 2009

Question 20

What did the Law Commissions 2006 report murder, manslaughter and infanticide say about DR?

Answer 20

It was badly out of date and did not reflect a modern psychiatric approach - now it encourages the defence to be grounded in medical diagnosis

Question 21

What did the old DR refer to a D suffering from and what is it now?

Answer 21

Abnormality of the mind

now its abnormality of mental functioning

Question 22

What does S2 of the CJA 20009 state about DR?

Answer 22

A person is not to be convicted of murder if he/she was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which;
Arose from a registered medical condition
Substantially impaired the D’s ability to understand nature of his conduct or form a rational judgement or exercise self-control
Provides an explanation for the D’s acts and omissions in doing o being a party to the killing

Question 23

What does ‘there must be an abnormality of mental functioning’ refer to in DR?

Answer 23

Using reasonable man test under Homicide Act 1957 given in R v Byrne 1960 - sexual psychopath unable to control sexual desires, strangled a girl and mutilated her body under these desires - his state of mind was SO different to the reasonable mans he should not be liable for murder

Question 24

What does ‘must have been caused by a registered medical condition’ refer to in DR?

Answer 24

Recognised by medical professionals - aimed to modernise defence
Only use DR if condition was evident at the time of the killing
Wide variety of conditions in old defence of DR;
PMS Reynolds 1988
Asperger’s syndrome Jama 2004
Epilepsy Bailey 1961
Othello syndrome Vinagre 1979

Question 25

In R v Osbourne 2010 what did the COA say about using the defence of DR?

Answer 25

ADHD could support defence of DR However, in this case it was more likely the D's drug taking and anger explained his conduct when killing Smoking cannabis with friends, V walking with friend, V punched D in self defence and D chased V with plank of wood and hit him on back of head - tried to argue ADHD played a role but COA dismissed his appeal

Question 26

What does 'substantial impairment of responsibility' refer to in DR?

Answer 26

Under CJA 2009 - abnormality of mind must have substantially impaired D's ability to; Understand nature of his conduct Form a rational judgement Exercise self control

Question 27

What did the COA say in R v Llyod 1967 in reference to mental abnormality substantially impairing D's ability in DR?

Answer 27

He strangled his wife tried to use DR saying he had mental abnormality but COA ruled it was not enough to substantially impair his conduct 'more than trivial but less than total' impairment

Question 28

Where else was the meaning of 'substantially impaired' addressed for DR?

Answer 28

Gold 2014 - was not enough to be substantial

Question 29

What must the abnormality of mental functioning provide an explanation for in DR?

Answer 29

For the D's involvement in killing the V Should be the cause or a significant contributory factor (unable to rely on defence if abnormality made no difference like in Osbourne 2010)

Question 30

What is unclear in the DR defence?

Answer 30

Whether the courts will apply old law (looking at relevance of drugs and alcohol) under the new defintion

Question 31

Explain the case R v Fenton 1975... DR

Answer 31

It was held a mental abnormality caused by drink or drugs was not usually sufficient for a DR plea D consumed large amounts of alcohol - drew a revolver and killed police officer - drove off with police car - shot and killed 3 more people Court held 1 of the 4 things impairing his ability was alcohol but there was still evidence with this factor ignored that he had an abnormality of the mind

Question 32

When is their problems with DR and intoxication?

Answer 32

When the D has a pre-existing abnormality of the mind and is intoxicated at time of killing - R v Gittens 1984 Suffered from depression, drunk a lot and took anti depressant pills and killed wife and stepdaughter JURY WERE TOLD TO IGNORE EFFECT OF ALCOHOL AND SEE IF THEIR STILL WAS ABNORMALITY - THERE WAS SO IT WAS MANSLAUGHTER

Question 33

Explain the case R v Egan 1992... DR and intoxiation

Answer 33

Suffering from a mental abnormality and was intoxicated when attempting to rob an elderly woman, then beat her to death - COA confirmed what they decided in Gittens VOLUNTARY CONSUMPTION OF DRUGS OR ALCOHOL MUST BE IGNORED

Question 34

Explain the case R v Dietschmann 2003... DR and intoxication

Answer 34

D killed a man at party who was disrespectful to memory of aunt who had recently died he was very drunk but suffered from grief induced adjustment disorder, HOL quashed murder conviction and substituted manslaughter - key question was whether or not the D was sober would he still be suffering from abnormality of the mind?

Question 35

What case was the murder conviction quashed because the trial judge did not direct the jury using principle in Dietschmann? (DR)

Answer 35

Hendy 2006

Question 36

What 2 other exceptions can a defendant plead DR regarding intoxication?

Answer 36

If a D's long term drug/alcohol abuse has led to brain damage or psychosis If the drug/alcohol addiction amounts to a disease

Question 37

What was explained in R v Tandy 1989 in regards to DR and intoxication?

Answer 37

You have to prove the urge to drink was so overwhelming that you could not control it. If you can prove this you can use the defence but it is SO difficult to prove that the alcohol was the thing that caused mental impairment Tandy was not able to use DR as it was held she had some control over whether she took the first drink of the day before killing her daughter

Question 38

What did the COA say in Wood 2008 about DR and intoxication following Tandy?

Answer 38

A person with alcohol dependence syndrome may be able to rely on the defence as this is a disease (abnormality) of the mind

Question 39

What must the jury consider when dealing with a case of an alcoholic killing?

Answer 39

Whether D's craving for alcohol was or was not irresistible Whether his consumption of alcohol in the period leading up to the killing was voluntary or not JURY SHOULD ASK WHETHER ALCOHOL DEPENDANCY LED TO AN ABNORMALITY OF MENTAL FUNCTIONING WHIHC CAUSED OR SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTED TO D'S INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF HIS CONDUCT

Question 40

What are the strengths of the reform of the DR defence?

Answer 40

New defence takes account of modern medical knowledge - flexible and development CJA 2009 did not define substantial but use the meaning 'substantially impaired' given in Llyod as guidelines When a D raises a DR plea the prosecution can argue insanity and maybe find them not guilty over all

Question 41

What are the weaknesses of the reform of the DR defence?

Answer 41

Should a jury really decide if a D was suffering from an abnormality of the mind at the time of the killing? Surely a judge/psychiatrist/doctor should decide this