Loss of self-control
- Created by: Hayley Petts
- Created on: 06-06-14 11:58
View mindmap
- Loss of control
- definition
- s54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009
- where D kills or is a party to the killing of another they are not to be convicted of murder if:
- if the act or omission resulted from a loss of self-control
- the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger
- a person D's sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint might have reacted the same way in the circumstances
- where D kills or is a party to the killing of another they are not to be convicted of murder if:
- s54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009
- Loss of self-control - S52 (2) and (4)
- must be no self-control at the time of the act which causes death
- loss of self-control need not be sudden
- old law of provocation held loss of self control must be sudden
- Ahluwalia (1992) - physically abused over many years by husband and one night before bed he threatened her with violence unless she paid bill next day.
- after husband fell asleep she poured petrol over him and set him alight, he died six days later
- CA rejected appeal based on provocation
- held that act had to be sudden rather than immediate
- the longer the delay the more deliberate the act
- CA did allow her appeal on basis of diminished responsibility
- Ahluwalia (1992) - physically abused over many years by husband and one night before bed he threatened her with violence unless she paid bill next day.
- old law of provocation held loss of self control must be sudden
- Qualifying Trigger
- s.55 sets out qualifying triggers which are permitted
- s55(3) - D's fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person
- Martin (Anthony) (2002) - showed that old law of provocation did not allow a defence where D lost control through fear of violence
- must be identifiable source - general fear is insufficient
- s.55(4) - a thing said or done (or both) which:
- constitutes circumstances of an extremely grave character
- cause D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
- test is tighter than old law
- many cases which were able to use provocation wouldn't be able to use new defence
- Doughty (1986) - killed baby son aged 19 days because child wouldn't stop crying
- an example of a case where D was able to use defence bot unlikely to be able to use loss of self-control now
- excluded matters
- s.55 (6) (c) - sexual infidelity
- s55(6) (a) and (b) - if D incited thing done or said out of a considered desire for revenge
- Ibrams and Gregory (1981) - ex-boyfriend of I's current GF had been visiting flat that Ibrams and gf shared terrorising them
- made planned attack to kill ex-boyf on 10th and carried out on 12th Oct
- convicted of murder as had made planned revenged attack
- gap of 5 days inbetween mean that there was no sudden loss of self-control
- Baillie (1995) - D learnt that son's drug dealer had threatened that son 'would get a slap' if he tried to get drugs from another dealer
- inflicted serious harm and shot him when he fled away
- CA allowed appeal because there was evidence of provocation and it was for the jury to decide if D was still suffering from loss of self-control
- Ibrams and Gregory (1981) - ex-boyfriend of I's current GF had been visiting flat that Ibrams and gf shared terrorising them
- standard of self-control
- D's age and sex are relevant
- need for a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint
- s.54(3) - emphasises that circumstances whose only relevance to D's conduct is they they bear on D's general capacity for tolerance or self restraint are not to be considered
- jury cannot consider any circumstances of D which may have made him less self-control
- Camplin (1978) - 15yr-old-boy had been sexually abused by older man who laughed at him. D reacted by hitting man over head with Chipatti pan
- HL allowed for appeal and held that D's sex and age should be taken into account in assessing the power of self control to be expected of D
- confirmed by Privy Council in A-G for Jersey v Holley (2005)
- held that none of D's characteristics other than sex and age were relevant in assessing D's ability to exercise self-control
- confirmed by Privy Council in A-G for Jersey v Holley (2005)
- HL allowed for appeal and held that D's sex and age should be taken into account in assessing the power of self control to be expected of D
- circumstances of the defendant
- a range of factors can be taken into account when considering where a normal person might have reacted in the same way or similar way in the circumstances
- Gregson (2006) - V taunted about his unemployment epilepsy and depression. D lost control and killed V
- D more sensitive to taunts due to epilepsy and depression
- unemployment, epilepsy and depression could be considered in deciding gravity of provocation to him
- Clinton (2012) - C was abusive and suspicious. C's wife left him and he found evidence of her sexual infidelity on Facebook. when she returned home to sort out kills C killed her
- trial judge did not allow defence to go to jury as sexual infidelity excluded by 2009 act
- no evidence capable of being a qualified trigger so convicted of murder
- Lord justice judge made several points about loss of control:
- old law is relevant
- sexual infidelity is to be disregarded as a qualifying trigger
- however, the context of infidelity is not to be excluded if its effects are sufficiently serious on an objective basis to be a qualifying trigger
- verbal admissions of sexual infidelity or evidence as such are also excluded
- under s54 (1) (c) impact of sexual infidelity is not excluded when looking at circumstances in which D has reacted and lost control
- everything except those being on the general capacity for tolerance and self-restraint should be considered
- definition
Comments
No comments have yet been made