Loss of control

section 54 and 55 of the Criminal Justice act 2009

• did the killing result from D's loss of control ?
• was this from a qualifying trigger ?
• would a person of D's age and sex , with a normal degree of trolerance and self restrtaint in the same circumstances act in the same way ? 

• if D remains control then there is no defence - Ibrams and gregory 1982 : evidence of premeditation means they were in control
• Jewell 2014 - loss of control is considered to mean a loss of the ability to act in accordanc with considered judgement or a loss of the normal powers of reasoning
• as the loss doesnt need to be sudden , slow burn reactions can occur - Ahluwalia 1992

trigger 1 - fear of serious violence section 55.3

Pearson 1992 - the cumilative effect of provocation has to be taken into account

Lodge 2014 - D killed V after V attacked him with a baseball bat

Ward 2012 - D killed V who had attacked D's brother at a house party

trigger 2 - things said or done which constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character and caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged section 55.4

Camplin 1978 - ******** by an old man then laughed at . then D killed V by hitting him with a pizza pan

Baillie 1995 - D was told by his teenage son that he was being threatened by a drug dealer

sexual infidelity is not valid on its own but its valid with another trigger (Clinton 2009, Dawes 2013) 

Doughty 1986 - the crying of a 17 day old baby is not valid

if the trigger is self influcetd then its to be disregarded

Humphreys 1995 - D was threatened by her boyfriend to have a gangbang (trigger 1) , and was later mocked after he failed suicide attempt (trigger 2)

2009 act - 'a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint in the circumstances of D, might have acted in the same or similar way'

Camplin 1978 - sex and age are relevant factors

Gregson 2006 - circumstances of D count in whether they are a 'normal' person

Amselash 2013 - intoxication is not a relervant circumstance

AG for Jersey V Holley 2005 - 'if a homo is taunted for being a homo it is for the jury to decide whether another homo with the ordinary powers of self control,in comparable circumstances, might be provoked to lose his self control'