Loss of control

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: azdw
  • Created on: 06-01-16 13:12
View mindmap
  • Loss of control
    • S 54 - 56 CJA 2009
    • Where a D kills V they are not to be convicted of murder if:
      • a) Ds act arised from a loss of control
      • b) the loss of self control had a qualifying trigger
      • c) a person of Ds sex and age, with a normal degree of self restraint and tolerance, and in the same circumstances of D might have acted in the same way
    • The second element of loss of control:
      • 'The last straw' R v Dryden - demolition case
      • the loss of control need not be sudden s54(2)
      • D must not have acted from a considered desire for revenge s54 (4)
      • R v Evans - acted after having deliberated and reflected on events - no loss of control
    • The third element of loss of control:
      • The loss of control must have had a qualifying trigger
        • The fear trigger
          • i) Ds fear of serious violence from V S55 (3)
            • ii) arises if the circumstances were extremely grave in character and Ds fear of violence was justifiable
        • The anger trigger
          • i) circumstances of an extremely grave character which caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
            • s55(4)
            • ii) arises if something said or done, or both ( bar sexual infidelity - R v Clinton) constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character - objectively determined
              • Sexual infidelity is to be disregarded as a trigger if it is the only one, it may be considered if formed part of a context/ number of triggers - R v Clinton
        • The qualifying trigger may be a combination of the two
        • R v Carlos Dawes - Neither qualifying trigger was available for a defendant who incited the situation
    • Objective test - D.P.P v Camplin - says to use the reasonable man test
    • Explanatory notes on battered women - if D was abused at the hands of the victim then this may be considered as part of Ds circumstances, however Ds generally short temper may not
    • Voluntary intoxication
      • R v Dawit - judge asked jury to consider from the sober reasonable man - same cirumstances but unaffected by alcohol
        • Unless D had serious alcohol problem
    • Onus and burden of proof- jury to assume defence is satisfied unless prosecution prove otherwise

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal resources »