It is submitted that Annabelle has likely murdered Victor due to her unlawful killing of a reasonably person in being
under the queen’s peace. She may be able to claim for the defence of loss of control under s54 of the Coroner’s and
Justice Act 2009, particularly due to the qualifying trigger of something said or done of grave nature. It is unlikely
that she will be able to claim the defence of Diminished Responsibility found in s2 of the Homicide Act 1964 due to
her PTSD as this arose after the killing but may be able to claim it due to her mood swings and paranoia, which may
be symptoms of battered spouse syndrome.
Murder
Murder has been defined by Lord Coke as “the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queen’s
peace” and we shall begin by assessing Annabelle’s killing of Victor against this criteria. The first aspect we must
assess is an “unlawful killing” which is any killing that is not in self defence (R v Ray), not a lawful execution (R v
Clegg) and not killing an outlaw. This can be clearly demonstrated in the case of R v Clegg where it was held that the
defendant did not meet any of these criteria and thus committed and unlawful killing. Regarding our defendant
Annabelle, similar to Clegg she does not meet any of the aforementioned criteria which make a killing lawful and
thus her killing of Victor is unlawful. Next, we must determine whether Victor was a “reasonable person in being”,
meaning that he must have been born to a human mother and have an active brain stem. As seen in the case of Ag
Ref No3 of 1993, born to a human mother merely means that the victim must have been born and not still a foetus
otherwise it is not murder and we can safely assume that Victor was born to a human mother. The victim must have
also had a functioning brain stem, as demonstrated by R v Steel, at the time they were killed and as Victor was
speaking, he clearly has an active brain stem so therefore, Annabelle’s killing was of a reasonable person in being.
Finally, it must be under the Queen’s peace which evidently it is. Therefore, it is aute clare that Annabelle has
committed the offence of murder and we must now assess whether either of the specific defences to murder are
applicable.
Loss of control
We shall now discuss whether Annabelle would be able to apply for the specific defence of Loss of Control which
would reduce her offence from murder to voluntary manslaughter and reduce her sentence. This defence, which
developed from the old defence of provocation, can be found in s54 of the Coroner’s and Justice Act 2009 and states
that the defendant must have suffered a loss of control arising from a qualifying trigger (as later established in s55)
and a defendant of the same age and gender would have acted the same. Firstly, Annabelle must have suffered a
loss of control, however the exact definition of this is unclear. In R v Jewell, this is defined as being over a period of
time whereas in R v Gurpinar, it is defined as being immediate. However, we can look at the old law of provocation
which was immediate so this is likely the law. It is evident that Annabelle suffered an immediate loss of control due
to stabbing Victor right away rather than thinking about it. Also, the fact that she could not remember what she was
doing implies that she suffered a loss of control rather than planning the murder. Next, this loss of control must have
occurred from a qualifying trigger and these triggers can be found in s55 and are fear of violence (R v Martin) and
something said or done of grave nature which gave D a justified sense of being wronged (R v Camplin). s55 also
clarifies that sexual infidelity (R v Collins) and revenge (R v Baillie) are not applicable, though neither of these apply
to our case. Due to Victor’s words causing her to stab him, this is clearly something said or done of grave nature and
is similar to the case of R v Camplin where he was also taunted by his abuser like Annabelle. This thing must have
also given the defendant a justified sense of being wronged, as seen in R v Zebedee where she did not have a
justified sense of being wronged. It is submitted that being insulted by your abuser and being called inadequate
would give a justified sense of being wronged, therefore meaning that Annabelle has the qualifying trigger. Finally,
under the queen’s peace. She may be able to claim for the defence of loss of control under s54 of the Coroner’s and
Justice Act 2009, particularly due to the qualifying trigger of something said or done of grave nature. It is unlikely
that she will be able to claim the defence of Diminished Responsibility found in s2 of the Homicide Act 1964 due to
her PTSD as this arose after the killing but may be able to claim it due to her mood swings and paranoia, which may
be symptoms of battered spouse syndrome.
Murder
Murder has been defined by Lord Coke as “the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queen’s
peace” and we shall begin by assessing Annabelle’s killing of Victor against this criteria. The first aspect we must
assess is an “unlawful killing” which is any killing that is not in self defence (R v Ray), not a lawful execution (R v
Clegg) and not killing an outlaw. This can be clearly demonstrated in the case of R v Clegg where it was held that the
defendant did not meet any of these criteria and thus committed and unlawful killing. Regarding our defendant
Annabelle, similar to Clegg she does not meet any of the aforementioned criteria which make a killing lawful and
thus her killing of Victor is unlawful. Next, we must determine whether Victor was a “reasonable person in being”,
meaning that he must have been born to a human mother and have an active brain stem. As seen in the case of Ag
Ref No3 of 1993, born to a human mother merely means that the victim must have been born and not still a foetus
otherwise it is not murder and we can safely assume that Victor was born to a human mother. The victim must have
also had a functioning brain stem, as demonstrated by R v Steel, at the time they were killed and as Victor was
speaking, he clearly has an active brain stem so therefore, Annabelle’s killing was of a reasonable person in being.
Finally, it must be under the Queen’s peace which evidently it is. Therefore, it is aute clare that Annabelle has
committed the offence of murder and we must now assess whether either of the specific defences to murder are
applicable.
Loss of control
We shall now discuss whether Annabelle would be able to apply for the specific defence of Loss of Control which
would reduce her offence from murder to voluntary manslaughter and reduce her sentence. This defence, which
developed from the old defence of provocation, can be found in s54 of the Coroner’s and Justice Act 2009 and states
that the defendant must have suffered a loss of control arising from a qualifying trigger (as later established in s55)
and a defendant of the same age and gender would have acted the same. Firstly, Annabelle must have suffered a
loss of control, however the exact definition of this is unclear. In R v Jewell, this is defined as being over a period of
time whereas in R v Gurpinar, it is defined as being immediate. However, we can look at the old law of provocation
which was immediate so this is likely the law. It is evident that Annabelle suffered an immediate loss of control due
to stabbing Victor right away rather than thinking about it. Also, the fact that she could not remember what she was
doing implies that she suffered a loss of control rather than planning the murder. Next, this loss of control must have
occurred from a qualifying trigger and these triggers can be found in s55 and are fear of violence (R v Martin) and
something said or done of grave nature which gave D a justified sense of being wronged (R v Camplin). s55 also
clarifies that sexual infidelity (R v Collins) and revenge (R v Baillie) are not applicable, though neither of these apply
to our case. Due to Victor’s words causing her to stab him, this is clearly something said or done of grave nature and
is similar to the case of R v Camplin where he was also taunted by his abuser like Annabelle. This thing must have
also given the defendant a justified sense of being wronged, as seen in R v Zebedee where she did not have a
justified sense of being wronged. It is submitted that being insulted by your abuser and being called inadequate
would give a justified sense of being wronged, therefore meaning that Annabelle has the qualifying trigger. Finally,
