Unit 4- p2, M2
Alex omidvar
P2 Explain the law on voluntary manslaughter
M2 - Apply the law on voluntary manslaughter in given situations
Introduction
In this assignment I am going to illustrate the law on voluntary manslaughter and explain all the
important factors that can reduce a crime from murder to manslaughter. Furthermore, I am
also going to apply the law on voluntary manslaughter in two different scenarios. A full analysis
of the actus reus and mens rea are also included within the scenarios. Voluntary manslaughter
is the crime if killing another person unlawfully in situations that do not result to murder. The
reason that I does not result in murder could be the establishment of the diminished
responsibility caused by an abnormality of mind or the establishment of provocation. It is
crucial to understand that the maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment but if
the defendant pleads guilty at the first stage, the judge will reduce the sentence by one third.
Other sentences such as a prison sentence and a suspended imprisonment or even a
community sentence could be given depending on the defendant and the type of case. This
assignment is also going to demonstrate the changes that have occurred within this area of law.
For instance, the introduction of the coroners and justice Act 2009 which replaced the
Homicide act 1957.
Diminished responsibility
The section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 states that "Where a person kills or is a party to the
killing of another, he shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from such abnormality
of mind whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any
inherent causes or induced by disease or injury as substantially impaired his mental
responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.”
Abnormality of mind
In the case of Byrne (1960), the defendant was a sexual psychopath who was unable to have
control over his mental problem regarding his sexual desires. He strangled a young woman and
mutilated her in a horifice way. Therefore, “irresistible impulses” can result in the diminished
responsibility as the defendant cannot control his actions. It was established in the case of R v
Gomez (1964) that there is not a necessity to illustrate that the defendant has always suffered
from the abnormality since birth. Furthermore, if someone has committed a crime while he or
she was drunk to the level that he or she did not have any control over their actions, the
defense of diminished responsibility is available. For instance, we should look at the case of R v
Tandy (1989). Here in this case, a mother strangled her daughter while she was drunk. The
court stated that “for a craving for drink to produce an abnormality of mind induced by the
disease of alcoholism, there had to be grossly impaired judgment and emotional responses or
the craving had to be such as to render the first drink of alcohol of the day voluntary” This
means anyone who voluntarily decides to drink the first drink, would be liable for whatever
crime they commit. However, if the defendant could not physically resist the alcohol or drugs,
1
Alex omidvar
P2 Explain the law on voluntary manslaughter
M2 - Apply the law on voluntary manslaughter in given situations
Introduction
In this assignment I am going to illustrate the law on voluntary manslaughter and explain all the
important factors that can reduce a crime from murder to manslaughter. Furthermore, I am
also going to apply the law on voluntary manslaughter in two different scenarios. A full analysis
of the actus reus and mens rea are also included within the scenarios. Voluntary manslaughter
is the crime if killing another person unlawfully in situations that do not result to murder. The
reason that I does not result in murder could be the establishment of the diminished
responsibility caused by an abnormality of mind or the establishment of provocation. It is
crucial to understand that the maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment but if
the defendant pleads guilty at the first stage, the judge will reduce the sentence by one third.
Other sentences such as a prison sentence and a suspended imprisonment or even a
community sentence could be given depending on the defendant and the type of case. This
assignment is also going to demonstrate the changes that have occurred within this area of law.
For instance, the introduction of the coroners and justice Act 2009 which replaced the
Homicide act 1957.
Diminished responsibility
The section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 states that "Where a person kills or is a party to the
killing of another, he shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from such abnormality
of mind whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any
inherent causes or induced by disease or injury as substantially impaired his mental
responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.”
Abnormality of mind
In the case of Byrne (1960), the defendant was a sexual psychopath who was unable to have
control over his mental problem regarding his sexual desires. He strangled a young woman and
mutilated her in a horifice way. Therefore, “irresistible impulses” can result in the diminished
responsibility as the defendant cannot control his actions. It was established in the case of R v
Gomez (1964) that there is not a necessity to illustrate that the defendant has always suffered
from the abnormality since birth. Furthermore, if someone has committed a crime while he or
she was drunk to the level that he or she did not have any control over their actions, the
defense of diminished responsibility is available. For instance, we should look at the case of R v
Tandy (1989). Here in this case, a mother strangled her daughter while she was drunk. The
court stated that “for a craving for drink to produce an abnormality of mind induced by the
disease of alcoholism, there had to be grossly impaired judgment and emotional responses or
the craving had to be such as to render the first drink of alcohol of the day voluntary” This
means anyone who voluntarily decides to drink the first drink, would be liable for whatever
crime they commit. However, if the defendant could not physically resist the alcohol or drugs,
1
