Voluntary Manslaughter (loss of control)
Partial defence to murder
Voluntary manslaughter will be charged where the defendant is seen to have a partial
defence to murder,
This means that the defendant will have committed the actus reus for ‘unlawful killing’ and
had the necessary mens rea for murder. But, they can put forward a reason as to why the
murder was committed.
Loss of Control
- Section 54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
When convicted of murder, a judge has no choice but to impose a mandatory life sentence.
With voluntary manslaughter, the partial defences allow the judge to have more discretion on
what sentence to impose.
The judge can impose a lesser sentence of up to a maximum life sentence.
Burden of Proof
- When the defence wants to rely on using ‘loss of control’, it is the prosecution that
has the burden of trying to disprove that this was the cause.
Section 54(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act (2009)
(1) Where a person (“D”) kills or is a party to the killing of another (“V”), D is not to be
convicted of murder if—
(a) D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D's loss of
self-control,
(b) the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, and
(c) a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in
the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.
A Loss of Self-Control
We need to identify a total loss of self-control. If it is found that there is only partial loss of
self-control, this will not suffice.
Following an update in the law, there is no longer a requirement for the loss of control to be
sudden. There can be a delay between the ‘trigger’ and the murder.
R v Gurpinar (2015)
- Gurpinar, who was 14 at the time of the offence, had stabbed another 14-year-old
during a fight. Gurpinar was convicted of murder. Referring to s.54 of the Coroners
and Justice Act 2009, the judges pointed out that there has to be “sufficient evidence”
, from the defence in order to try and rely on ‘loss of control’ as a partial defence to
murder. Evidence from a ‘loss of self-control’ could be.
- Where the defendant has lost their ability to maintain their actions in accordance with
considered judgement.
- Where
Lost their normal powers of reasoning
R v Jewell (2014)
- The defendant shot the victim. They were later arrested in his car, which contained
other weapons and ammunition; as well as a ‘survival kit’ of a tent, clothes, passport
etc. The defendant wanted to rely on the ‘loss of control’ defence and submitted: “I
did it because I lost control. I could not control my actions. I could not think straight.
- .
R v Ahluwalia (1992)
- The defendant had been physically abused for years by her husband. One night, she
was threatened by him, so decided to wait for him to go to bed. She then proceeded
to cover him with petrol and set him alight, The husband later died. The defendant
was convicted of murder (before the appeal). She could not rely on the old law
defence
Qualifying Triggers
Section 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
Fears Serious Violence - This subsection applies if D's loss of self-control was attributable
to D's fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person.
Things Done or Said - This subsection applies if D's loss of self-control was attributable to
a thing or things done or said (or both) which—
(a) constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and
(b) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
Excluded Matters - In determining whether a loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger—
(a) D's fear of serious violence is to be disregarded to the extent that it was caused by a
thing which D incited to be done or said for the purpose of providing an excuse to use
violence;
(b) a sense of being seriously wronged by a thing done or said is not justifiable if D
incited the thing to be done or said for the purpose of providing an excuse to use
violence;
(c) the fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded.
Partial defence to murder
Voluntary manslaughter will be charged where the defendant is seen to have a partial
defence to murder,
This means that the defendant will have committed the actus reus for ‘unlawful killing’ and
had the necessary mens rea for murder. But, they can put forward a reason as to why the
murder was committed.
Loss of Control
- Section 54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
When convicted of murder, a judge has no choice but to impose a mandatory life sentence.
With voluntary manslaughter, the partial defences allow the judge to have more discretion on
what sentence to impose.
The judge can impose a lesser sentence of up to a maximum life sentence.
Burden of Proof
- When the defence wants to rely on using ‘loss of control’, it is the prosecution that
has the burden of trying to disprove that this was the cause.
Section 54(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act (2009)
(1) Where a person (“D”) kills or is a party to the killing of another (“V”), D is not to be
convicted of murder if—
(a) D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D's loss of
self-control,
(b) the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, and
(c) a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in
the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.
A Loss of Self-Control
We need to identify a total loss of self-control. If it is found that there is only partial loss of
self-control, this will not suffice.
Following an update in the law, there is no longer a requirement for the loss of control to be
sudden. There can be a delay between the ‘trigger’ and the murder.
R v Gurpinar (2015)
- Gurpinar, who was 14 at the time of the offence, had stabbed another 14-year-old
during a fight. Gurpinar was convicted of murder. Referring to s.54 of the Coroners
and Justice Act 2009, the judges pointed out that there has to be “sufficient evidence”
, from the defence in order to try and rely on ‘loss of control’ as a partial defence to
murder. Evidence from a ‘loss of self-control’ could be.
- Where the defendant has lost their ability to maintain their actions in accordance with
considered judgement.
- Where
Lost their normal powers of reasoning
R v Jewell (2014)
- The defendant shot the victim. They were later arrested in his car, which contained
other weapons and ammunition; as well as a ‘survival kit’ of a tent, clothes, passport
etc. The defendant wanted to rely on the ‘loss of control’ defence and submitted: “I
did it because I lost control. I could not control my actions. I could not think straight.
- .
R v Ahluwalia (1992)
- The defendant had been physically abused for years by her husband. One night, she
was threatened by him, so decided to wait for him to go to bed. She then proceeded
to cover him with petrol and set him alight, The husband later died. The defendant
was convicted of murder (before the appeal). She could not rely on the old law
defence
Qualifying Triggers
Section 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
Fears Serious Violence - This subsection applies if D's loss of self-control was attributable
to D's fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person.
Things Done or Said - This subsection applies if D's loss of self-control was attributable to
a thing or things done or said (or both) which—
(a) constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and
(b) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
Excluded Matters - In determining whether a loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger—
(a) D's fear of serious violence is to be disregarded to the extent that it was caused by a
thing which D incited to be done or said for the purpose of providing an excuse to use
violence;
(b) a sense of being seriously wronged by a thing done or said is not justifiable if D
incited the thing to be done or said for the purpose of providing an excuse to use
violence;
(c) the fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded.
