Voluntary Manslaughter
- If mens rea for murder is present and D is able to plead a special defence (loss of control,
diminished responsibility, or suicide pact), their liability can be reduced to voluntary
manslaughter
Loss of control
- Partial defence to murder only
- Found within sections 54-56 Coroners and Justice Act 2009
• s.56 replaced old common law defence of provocation and repealed s.3 Homicide Act 1957
• R v Martin (Jovan) [2017] states that loss of control is significantly different and more restrictive
than provocation
- According to s.54(5) Coroners and Justice Act 2009, legal burden of disproving defence is on the
prosecution, who must prove beyond unreasonable doubt that the elements of the defence are not
satisfied
- Defence can only be left to jury if the judge believes that there is some credible evidence that
could make a reasonable jury think the defence might apply, according to s.54 CJA 2009
- Elements
1. D’s acts or omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D’s loss of self
control
• Subjectively assessed (D himself must have lost control)
• Jewell [2014]
• D shot V and fled the scene
• At trial, he claimed to have lost control
• Judge stated that there was insufficient evidence of D having lost control
• CoA approved of following definition of loss of control: ‘a loss of the ability to act in
accordance with considered judgement or a loss of normal powers of reasoning’
• R v Dawson and Dawson [2021]
• Violent nature of assault not enough to provide evidence of loss of control
• R v Goodwin [2018]
• Held that D’s failure to state that they lost control is a powerful point against issue arising, but
does not completely rule out the possibility of defence being present
• Loss of control does not need to be sudden, according to s.54(2) CJA 2009
• Criticised by L. H. Leigh, saying loss of control elements suggest there is a sudden point of
explosion
• No loss of control if acted in considered desire for revenge, similar to old provocation defence
• Criticised for not stating what is required to prove that D acted in desire for revenge, like if
possession of a weapon (Pearson [1992]) is considered proof for D desiring revenge
• Problems with old common law
• D could not rely on provocation if there was a delay in the killing. Impulsive reactions seen in
confrontations between males fit defence, but delayed reactions common in victims of abuse
(often women) could not, making defence gender biased, as seen in Thornton [1993]
2. Loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger
• D’s fear of serious violence from V against D or someone else (R v Ward [2012])
• Fear need not be reasonable
• Results in overlap between loss of control and self-defence, although R v Goodwin [2018] states
they are ‘legally distinct’, as self defence arises when D believes there may be violence and loss
of control arises when D fears serious violence
- If mens rea for murder is present and D is able to plead a special defence (loss of control,
diminished responsibility, or suicide pact), their liability can be reduced to voluntary
manslaughter
Loss of control
- Partial defence to murder only
- Found within sections 54-56 Coroners and Justice Act 2009
• s.56 replaced old common law defence of provocation and repealed s.3 Homicide Act 1957
• R v Martin (Jovan) [2017] states that loss of control is significantly different and more restrictive
than provocation
- According to s.54(5) Coroners and Justice Act 2009, legal burden of disproving defence is on the
prosecution, who must prove beyond unreasonable doubt that the elements of the defence are not
satisfied
- Defence can only be left to jury if the judge believes that there is some credible evidence that
could make a reasonable jury think the defence might apply, according to s.54 CJA 2009
- Elements
1. D’s acts or omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D’s loss of self
control
• Subjectively assessed (D himself must have lost control)
• Jewell [2014]
• D shot V and fled the scene
• At trial, he claimed to have lost control
• Judge stated that there was insufficient evidence of D having lost control
• CoA approved of following definition of loss of control: ‘a loss of the ability to act in
accordance with considered judgement or a loss of normal powers of reasoning’
• R v Dawson and Dawson [2021]
• Violent nature of assault not enough to provide evidence of loss of control
• R v Goodwin [2018]
• Held that D’s failure to state that they lost control is a powerful point against issue arising, but
does not completely rule out the possibility of defence being present
• Loss of control does not need to be sudden, according to s.54(2) CJA 2009
• Criticised by L. H. Leigh, saying loss of control elements suggest there is a sudden point of
explosion
• No loss of control if acted in considered desire for revenge, similar to old provocation defence
• Criticised for not stating what is required to prove that D acted in desire for revenge, like if
possession of a weapon (Pearson [1992]) is considered proof for D desiring revenge
• Problems with old common law
• D could not rely on provocation if there was a delay in the killing. Impulsive reactions seen in
confrontations between males fit defence, but delayed reactions common in victims of abuse
(often women) could not, making defence gender biased, as seen in Thornton [1993]
2. Loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger
• D’s fear of serious violence from V against D or someone else (R v Ward [2012])
• Fear need not be reasonable
• Results in overlap between loss of control and self-defence, although R v Goodwin [2018] states
they are ‘legally distinct’, as self defence arises when D believes there may be violence and loss
of control arises when D fears serious violence
