Voluntary Manslaughter (2)

* Loss of control is a special defence for murder. Voluntary manslaughter is where the defendant has committed murder but raises a special defence which results in a lower setence. 

A defendant can raise a special defence in three ways:

1. Diminished Responsibility

2. Suicide Pact

3. Loss of Control

If a defendant successfully pleads a defence and is found guilty of manslaughter. This allows the judge to turn from manditory to discetionary

* Loss of control replaces the former defence of provocation found in the Homicide Act 1957.

* Defendant will not be convicted of murder if....

1. Defendants acts or omissions from doing the killing resulted from the defendants loss of control

2. The loss of control had a qualifying trigger

3. A person of the same sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint would of reacted in the same was as the defendant in those circumstances

(Standard of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt)

* Under the old law on provocation, the loss of control had to be sudden. There is no such requirement anymore under the new legilsation. (Coroners & Justice 2009)

* Ahluwalia

  Defendant killed her husband when he was alseep, she poured petrol over him and set it alight, defendant was suffering from BWS. Defendant was guilty of murder and was not allowed to appeal because there was no sudden loss of control, she waited till he was alseep, so it was a deliberate act.

Under new legislation, Ahluwalia would be allowed to use the special defence of loss of control, as now the loss of control doesnt have to be sudden

* There must be a qualifying trigger

* This is defined under S55 of the Coroners & Justice Act 2009

* There are two types of qualifying triggers 'Fear of Violence' 'Things Said/Things Done'.

* Fear of violence was not a sufficient reason for loss of control under the old law on provocation, seen in the case of Tony Martin. The court ruled that the fear of violence cant be a general fear, it has to be from an identified person. The defendant doesnt not have to fear serious violence from the victim.

*  Things Said/Things Done applies if victims loss of control, had a qualifying trigger for things said/done which 

1. Constituted characteristics of an extremerally grave character

2. Caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. 

Case Example: (Doughty)

* Coroners & Justice Act 2009 stated sexual infidelity can never be a qualifying trigger

 Under the old law on provocation sexual infidelity was allowed as a qualifying trigger. The government felt that provocation allowed a defence for jealous men to kill their girlfriend or wives  because they were having an affair

(Clinton) or (Humes A-G Reference No 95)

 Sexual infidelity may be considered if it formed an essential part of the context and there were other factors for the qualifying trigger.

Under the old law on provocation, there needs to be a sudden loss of control, and therefore if the defendant has time to consider the revenge, the defence is unavailable. 

* Case Example: Ibrahams & Gregory or Baillie

The third stage of the test is standard of self control. (A person of the same sex and age with a noral degree of tolerance and self restraint, in the cirucumstances of the defendant would have raected in the same or in a similar way).

Case To Support this is (Camplin) - age was taken into account and on appeal, murder conviction was reduced to manslaughter

Only sex and age are decided for standard of self control. Other considerations can be taken into account in deciding whether a normal person would have reacted in the same or in a similar way (Gregson)