Week 10 tutorial: Voluntary manslaughter
Manslaughter
It is a common law homicide offence
- offence with actus reus of unlawful conduct causing the death of a person
- wider spectrum of mens rea
- the judge has a discretion up to a maximum of life imprisonment
- can be committed in a variety of ways
- separated in two distinct categories
- voluntary manslaughter: D satisfies actus reus and mens rea, but also satisfies
the elements of partial defence that reduces her liability to manslaughter
- involuntary manslaughter: D does not satisfy the mens rea for murder, but
becomes liable for manslaughter because her conduct and mens rea satisfy the
elements of a lesser involuntary manslaughter offence
- voluntary manslaughter involves a partial defence to murder
- involuntary manslaughter involves a separate offence
Voluntary manslaughter
- Arises where D satisfies both the actus reus and mens rea of murder
- When D does not have a complete defence then becomes relevant to discuss the
possibility of a partial defence
There are three partial defences
• loss of self-control: D kills while having lost her self-control owing to fear of
serious violence or because of her justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
• Diminished responsibility: D’s recognised medical condition led to an
abnormality of mind which substantially impaired her capacity and caused her to kill
• Suicide pact: D kills V in pursuance of an agreement that they will both die
together
Loss of self-control
- The partial defence is defined in section 54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act
2009
- it is a defence only to murder
- the defendant must show that a) the killing resulted from D’s loss of self-control b)
had lost self-control as a result of a “qualifying trigger” and c) a person of the
defendant’s age and sex with normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint would
have reacted in the same way
- where an issue of LOC arrises the legal burden is on the prosecution to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that one or more of these elements are absent
- the partial defence does not apply if D acted in a considered desire for revenge
D must must have lost self-control
The first element of the defence is the requirement that D’s conduct must have
resulted from a lack of self-control. This is a subjective requirement: we ask whether
D herself lost self-control, it is irrelevant whether a reasonable person in D’s position
would have done so or not.
There must be a qualifying trigger
- It is not enough for the defendant to show the loss of self-control
- D must show that was provoked by a qualifying trigger into losing self-control
- under the law prior to the 2009 Act it had be shown that the loss of self-control was
‘sudden and temporary’
- Section 54(2) makes it clear that there is no need for the loss of self-control to be
sudden
Manslaughter
It is a common law homicide offence
- offence with actus reus of unlawful conduct causing the death of a person
- wider spectrum of mens rea
- the judge has a discretion up to a maximum of life imprisonment
- can be committed in a variety of ways
- separated in two distinct categories
- voluntary manslaughter: D satisfies actus reus and mens rea, but also satisfies
the elements of partial defence that reduces her liability to manslaughter
- involuntary manslaughter: D does not satisfy the mens rea for murder, but
becomes liable for manslaughter because her conduct and mens rea satisfy the
elements of a lesser involuntary manslaughter offence
- voluntary manslaughter involves a partial defence to murder
- involuntary manslaughter involves a separate offence
Voluntary manslaughter
- Arises where D satisfies both the actus reus and mens rea of murder
- When D does not have a complete defence then becomes relevant to discuss the
possibility of a partial defence
There are three partial defences
• loss of self-control: D kills while having lost her self-control owing to fear of
serious violence or because of her justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
• Diminished responsibility: D’s recognised medical condition led to an
abnormality of mind which substantially impaired her capacity and caused her to kill
• Suicide pact: D kills V in pursuance of an agreement that they will both die
together
Loss of self-control
- The partial defence is defined in section 54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act
2009
- it is a defence only to murder
- the defendant must show that a) the killing resulted from D’s loss of self-control b)
had lost self-control as a result of a “qualifying trigger” and c) a person of the
defendant’s age and sex with normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint would
have reacted in the same way
- where an issue of LOC arrises the legal burden is on the prosecution to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that one or more of these elements are absent
- the partial defence does not apply if D acted in a considered desire for revenge
D must must have lost self-control
The first element of the defence is the requirement that D’s conduct must have
resulted from a lack of self-control. This is a subjective requirement: we ask whether
D herself lost self-control, it is irrelevant whether a reasonable person in D’s position
would have done so or not.
There must be a qualifying trigger
- It is not enough for the defendant to show the loss of self-control
- D must show that was provoked by a qualifying trigger into losing self-control
- under the law prior to the 2009 Act it had be shown that the loss of self-control was
‘sudden and temporary’
- Section 54(2) makes it clear that there is no need for the loss of self-control to be
sudden
