Voluntary Mansalughter

• The defence of loss of control was previously known as provocation and was defined by s3 of the Homicide Act 1957.
• The defence of loss of control is now governed by s54 and s55 of the Coroners Act 2009. 
• Reduces liability to voluntary manslaughter
• The defendant must raise the defence on a balance of probabilities and the prosecution must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt

The first point to prove is the defendant lost control and caused the death. This is a question for the jury to decide. 

• D must have lost control and not just self-restraint and caused the death Cocker
• Doesn't have to be immediate or sudden and can occur through a slow burn Ahluwalia or through a final straw Thornton. 
• LOC cannot be considered a desire for revenge Ibrams

• Things said and/or done of an extremely grave nature which gives D a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged as in Camplin and Baillie in contrast to Doughty and Zebedee.
• Cannot include sexual infidelity Clinton and/or a fear or serious violence against D or another Pearson.

• Another person with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint of D's same sex and age would have acted in the same way in contrast to Holley
• Previous cases included a history of abuse Ahluwalia, unemployment and depression Gregson

The defence either:

1) Suceeds- conviction reduced to voluntary manslaughter with sentencing at the discretion of the Judge

OR

2) Fails- D found guilty of murder 

• Suffered many years of domestic abuse
• Doused him in petrol and set his bed alight, he died 6 days later
• Convicted of murder- was NOT sudden and temporary loss of self-control

Didn't allow for her long term torment- law changed so now it doesn't have to be immediate or sudden

• Couple intimidated by woman's ex John
• Hatched a plan- going to bed with his ex 
• Ibrams and Gregory attacked John and killed him 
• Time difference between John's last attack and his death was too great- murder.

Didn't suffer a sudden and temporary loss of self-control, REVENGE is an exception

• Farmer shot two burglars as they were leaving the farm. This was considered excessive force as the threat had passed

It may be possible for LOC to be used under present law 

• D lost control when his 94 year old Dad who suffered from Alzheimer's and was incontinent soiled himself. 
• D killed him
• Convicted of murder, was NOT extremely grave and D had NOT been seriously wronged 

• D was suffering from depression and on medication
• D killed his wife who told him she was having an affair, taunted him about looking up suicide as he hasn't got the courage
• D killed V

QUASHED

• A 15 year old boy had been sexually abused by an older man who had then laughed at him,
• D hit the man over the head with a pan 

• D learnt that his son's drug dealer threatened that he would 'get a slap' if he tried to get drugs from another dealer
• Inflicted serious injury to dealer with razor+fired shotgun
• Killed by particled blasted from a wire fence by the gun 

PROVOKED- Jury to decide if he suffered from LOC when he killed the dealer

• D was unemployed and suffering from depression and epilepsy
• Lost his job due to epilepsy
• V taunted him, D was more sensitive to taunts and abuse about his unemployment due to depression
• D lost control and killed V

PROVOKED

• D had been sexually abused as a child. V tried to sexually assault D. 
• D lost control and killed V

PROVOKED