Loss of Control Criminal Law
Voluntary Manslaughter:
D is excused from full liability by relying on extenuating circumstances known as ‘special’ and ‘partial
defences’
‘Partial:’
Reduces murder conviction to manslaughter (not a full defence, which results in full
acquittal)
Allows the trial judge more discretion when it comes to sentencing
Mandatory life sentence can be avoided
Life imprisonment is still available for manslaughter
D avoids the label of ‘murderer’ = avoids stigma, especially after they served their sentence,
they will not be labelled as a murderer for the rest of their lives
‘Special’ = only available to murder
Loss of Control:
S.54 Coroners and Justice Act (2009).
Partial defence to murder (not available to attempted murder), meaning D is less culpable = reduces
the murder conviction to a manslaughter conviction, more sentencing options available to judge
(avoids the mandatory life sentence which murder holds)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replaced the common law defence of ‘provocation’ – s.3 Homicide Act 1957:
Law Commission
Under the old law:
Loss of self-control had to be ‘sudden and temporary’
Duffy (1949):
o Required a “sudden and temporary loss of control”
o This produced unfair results – gender bias (Ahluwalia 1992):
Women perceived to have a ‘slow burn’ effect whilst men were perceived to
be impulsive – this meant that the defence was available to men and not
women
The defence is not available for women in abusive relationships who kill (but
without losing self-control)
In Ahluwalia’s case – despite the evidence of provocation the defence was
not available as she did not suffer loss of self-control – even under the new
Act the outcome would be the same – Ahluwalia was in full possession of
her
Must be no self-control at the time of the act which causes death
“rendering the accused so subject to passion as to make him or her for the moment not
master of his mind” – R v Duffy, Devlin J, approved by the Court of Appeal in R v Ibrams and
R v Thornton
, Loss of Control Criminal Law
The old common law defence of provocation was useful to those who lost temper at that
moment in time did not help those with ongoing issues e.g. domestic abuse
“Where on a charge of murder there is evidence on which the jury can find that the person
charged was provoked(whether by things done or by things said or by both together) to lose his
self-control, the question whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as
he did shall be left to be determined by the jury; and in determining that question the jury shall
take into account everything both done and said according to the effect which, in their opinion, it
would have on a reasonable man.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Burden of proof rests on D to raise the defence – prosecution must prove that D had a loss of control
on a balance of probabilities / the onus is on the prosecution to disprove it beyond a reasonable
doubt – s.54 (5). Evidence can come from prosecution and/or defence. There must be some
evidence on all 3 elements of loss of control (Gurpinar 2015).
The D is not to be convicted of murder if:
S.54 (1)(a) – lost self-control
S.54 (1)(b) – as a result of a ‘qualifying trigger’
S.55 (1)(c) – a person of the D’s age and sex with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint
would have reacted in the same way.
s. 54(1)(a) Loss of self-control:
̶ D must prove they lost control at the time of the killing
̶ D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D’s loss of control
̶ Jewell (2014):
o Man armed himself and shot the victim 12 hours later
o Loss of control was said to involve:
“loss of the ability to act in accordance with considered judgement or a loss of
normal powers of reasoning”
̶ R v Thornton:
o D killed abusive husband
o Was not loss of control
̶ Subjective test
̶ Whether or not the lost control will be a question for the jury which is subjectively assessed
̶ R v Dawes, Hatter and Bowyer (2013):
o “irritation…serious anger do not often cross threshold of LOSC”
̶ Serrano (2006):
o Instinctive reaction is not LOSC
o Longer delay implies that the trigger has not caused a loss of control
̶ This no longer needs to be sudden
̶ E.g. under the new law this defence would be available to R v Ahluwalia
Voluntary Manslaughter:
D is excused from full liability by relying on extenuating circumstances known as ‘special’ and ‘partial
defences’
‘Partial:’
Reduces murder conviction to manslaughter (not a full defence, which results in full
acquittal)
Allows the trial judge more discretion when it comes to sentencing
Mandatory life sentence can be avoided
Life imprisonment is still available for manslaughter
D avoids the label of ‘murderer’ = avoids stigma, especially after they served their sentence,
they will not be labelled as a murderer for the rest of their lives
‘Special’ = only available to murder
Loss of Control:
S.54 Coroners and Justice Act (2009).
Partial defence to murder (not available to attempted murder), meaning D is less culpable = reduces
the murder conviction to a manslaughter conviction, more sentencing options available to judge
(avoids the mandatory life sentence which murder holds)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replaced the common law defence of ‘provocation’ – s.3 Homicide Act 1957:
Law Commission
Under the old law:
Loss of self-control had to be ‘sudden and temporary’
Duffy (1949):
o Required a “sudden and temporary loss of control”
o This produced unfair results – gender bias (Ahluwalia 1992):
Women perceived to have a ‘slow burn’ effect whilst men were perceived to
be impulsive – this meant that the defence was available to men and not
women
The defence is not available for women in abusive relationships who kill (but
without losing self-control)
In Ahluwalia’s case – despite the evidence of provocation the defence was
not available as she did not suffer loss of self-control – even under the new
Act the outcome would be the same – Ahluwalia was in full possession of
her
Must be no self-control at the time of the act which causes death
“rendering the accused so subject to passion as to make him or her for the moment not
master of his mind” – R v Duffy, Devlin J, approved by the Court of Appeal in R v Ibrams and
R v Thornton
, Loss of Control Criminal Law
The old common law defence of provocation was useful to those who lost temper at that
moment in time did not help those with ongoing issues e.g. domestic abuse
“Where on a charge of murder there is evidence on which the jury can find that the person
charged was provoked(whether by things done or by things said or by both together) to lose his
self-control, the question whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as
he did shall be left to be determined by the jury; and in determining that question the jury shall
take into account everything both done and said according to the effect which, in their opinion, it
would have on a reasonable man.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Burden of proof rests on D to raise the defence – prosecution must prove that D had a loss of control
on a balance of probabilities / the onus is on the prosecution to disprove it beyond a reasonable
doubt – s.54 (5). Evidence can come from prosecution and/or defence. There must be some
evidence on all 3 elements of loss of control (Gurpinar 2015).
The D is not to be convicted of murder if:
S.54 (1)(a) – lost self-control
S.54 (1)(b) – as a result of a ‘qualifying trigger’
S.55 (1)(c) – a person of the D’s age and sex with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint
would have reacted in the same way.
s. 54(1)(a) Loss of self-control:
̶ D must prove they lost control at the time of the killing
̶ D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D’s loss of control
̶ Jewell (2014):
o Man armed himself and shot the victim 12 hours later
o Loss of control was said to involve:
“loss of the ability to act in accordance with considered judgement or a loss of
normal powers of reasoning”
̶ R v Thornton:
o D killed abusive husband
o Was not loss of control
̶ Subjective test
̶ Whether or not the lost control will be a question for the jury which is subjectively assessed
̶ R v Dawes, Hatter and Bowyer (2013):
o “irritation…serious anger do not often cross threshold of LOSC”
̶ Serrano (2006):
o Instinctive reaction is not LOSC
o Longer delay implies that the trigger has not caused a loss of control
̶ This no longer needs to be sudden
̶ E.g. under the new law this defence would be available to R v Ahluwalia
