MURDER AND VOL MANS DEFENCES mindmap LAW 03

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: abic1
  • Created on: 26-02-18 16:39
View mindmap
  • MURDER AND VOLUNTARY MANS. DEFENCES
    • Former defence was Provocation s3 HOMOCIDE ACT 1957, replaced with LOSS OF CONTROL 2009
    • Special defences = only available for the charge of murder
    • Partial defence = murder reduced to manslaughter
    • 3 defences available for murder
      • Loss of Control 2009
        • Subjective test based on defendant RICHENS 1993
        • Loss of ability to act with considered judgement JEWELL
        • Can't be guilty if act of killing was because of a loss of control, with a qualifying trigger, when a person of defendant's age and gender would react un same was in same situation
        • Prosecution must prove beyond all reasonable doubt that there was no loss of control
        • Courts take into consideration Cumulative Provocation DAWES 2013
        • Sudden
          • Loss of control does not have to be sudden DAWES 2013
          • CORONERS AND JUSTICE ACT 2009
        • Cumulative Provocation
          • Slow Burn
          • Defendant must still be out of control at time of killing
          • Cooling off periods are not accepted but Slow Burn is
          • The longer time between qualifying trigger and killing, less likely jury will accept defence, looks like revenge killing
        • Qualifying Triggers
          • Fear Trigger
            • Old law on Provocation didn't allow defence when defendant lost control through fear MARTIN 2002
            • Battered wives can use fear trigger, due to fear of violence from partners AHLUWALIA
            • Defendant must fear that violence will be used against them or another identified person PEARSON
          • Anger Trigger
            • Things said or done CAMPLIN
            • Must be of an extremely grave nature
            • Cause the defendant a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged DOUGHTY
          • s55 sets out the 2 qualifying triggers
          • Standard of Self Control
            • Expected of the defendant
            • If answer is yes, murder reduced to manslaughter
            • Would a person:
            • Of defendant's sex and age CAMPLIN
            • With a normal degree of tolerance and self restrain as the defendant HOLLEY
            • In the same circumstances HILL or GREGSON or VAN DOGEN
            • Have reacted in the same way?
          • Can be a combination of the 2 triggers
        • Excluded Matters
          • Sexual infidelity cannot be used as a qualifying trigger on its own CLINTON
          • Revenge killings are not accepted as they are premeditated attacks IBRAMS & GREGORY
            • S55 (4) Defendant cannot use defence if acted in "considered desire for revenge"
      • Diminished Responsibility
        • Set out in HOMOCIDE ACT 1957, amended by S52 CORONERS AND JUSTICE ACT 2009
        • Reduces charge from murder to manslaughter
        • Burden of proof on the defendant to prove on balance of probabilities they were suffering from diminished responsibility FOYE 2013
        • Must be suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning, arising from a recognised medical condition, substantially impairing the defendant's mental responsibility,providing significant explanation to defendant's act in killing
          • Abnormality of Mental Functioning
            • "State of mind so different from that of an ordinary human beings' that the reasonable man would term it abnormal" BYRNE
            • Jury decides if there is a mental abnormality
            • Evidence from 2 medical practicioners provided
          • Arose from Recognised Medical Condition
            • Covers psychological harm, physical conditions   and mental disorders
            • Depression SEERS
            • Paranoia MARTIN
            • Battered Women's Syndrome AHLUWALIA
            • Epilepsy
            • Sleep Disorders
            • Stress Disorders ROBSON
            • PMT
            • Alcohol Dependency Syndrome DIETSCHMANN
            • Brain Damage HENDY
            • Schizophrenia/ Dementia
          • Substantially Impair Defendant's Mental Responsibility
            • "Impairment must be significant, appreciable, or real" GOLDS 2016
            • Jury decide if impairment is substantial enough BYRNE
            • To understand nature of their conduct (delusions etc)
            • To for rational judgement (paranoia etc)
            • To exercise self control BYRNE
          • Providing a Significant Explanation for Defendant's Conduct
            • Must be a causual connection between defendant's act and kiling
            • Provides explanation for conduct if it causes or is a significant factor in causing defendant to carry out that conduct S2 (1B) HOMOCIDE ACT 1957
        • + Intoxication
          • Intoxication alone cannot support defence of diminished responsibility DI DUCA
          • If, had the defendant been sober they would have reacted in same way, diminished responsibility can be used DIETSCHMANN 2003
          • Psychotic disorder + intoxication = can use diminished responsibility HENDY 2006
          • Stress disorder + intoxication = can use diminished responsibility ROBSON 2006
      • Suicide Pact

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »