Loss of control

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Lizzie
  • Created on: 13-04-14 10:54
View mindmap
  • Loss of Control
    • Coroners and Justice Act 2009
      • Defined loss of control in Ss54+55
    • Three elements must be proven...
      • a) the killing resulted from D's loss of control
        • Subjective test- jury must identify whether D did loss self control and whether is was due to the qualifying trigger
        • Objective test- if the answer to the subjective test is 'yes' then the jury must decide if a person with D's characteristics would have reacted in a similar way
        • It doesn't matter whether or not the loss of control was sudden this allows the slow burn or cumulative provocation defense to be used.
          • Ahluwahlia
          • Ibrams and Gregory (4 day gap)- the longer the delay between the trigger and the killing the less likely the judge is to leave the defenses to the jury
          • Baillie- any delay may still have some relevance to the decision
      • b) the loss of self control had a qualifying trigger  (s55)
        • fear of serious violence
          • s55(3) if D's loss of self control was attributable to D's fear of serious violence from the victim against the D or any other identifiable person the they may use the defense
          • Evidence of V's bad character
          • Subjective test - D's fear of violence needs to b genuine- not reasonable
        • things said or done or both which caused the D to have a sense of being seriously wronged
          • a) constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character
            • Not defined in the Act so Jury must use their 'common sense'
            • s55(6)(a)- D can't rely on violence that he incited
          • b) caused the D to  have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
            • s55(6)(b)- D cannot be use the defence is he is responsible for the things said or done
            • s55(6)(C)- sexual infidelity is to be disregarded
              • R v Clinton
      • c) a person of D's sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint and in the circumstances of D would have reacted in the same or a similar way to D
        • Subjective- D's sex and age
          • Untitled
        • Objective- normal degree of tolerance and self restraint of  a reasonable man
          • Holley
        • Gregson- D had lost his job due to epilespy,- V taunted him about unemployment and epilepsy. D lost self control and killed V. Unemployment and epilepsy could be taken into account when deciding the gravity of the provocation to him although not to the level of self control expected


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »