Key points to understand about” loss of control”
History/Background- OLD LAW Loss of control is a partial defence.
Loss of control is 1 of the 2 special defences only available for the offence of murder which we It is only available for murder where the D has the required AR (death of a human
study (rules + evaluation) for AQA A2 Law. being) and the MR (intention to kill/cause GBH- direct or oblique intention).
Loss of control replaced the old partial defence of provocation which was defined at S3 of the The effect of a D successfully raising this partial defence is that their conviction for
Homicide Act 1957. There were many criticisms of “provocation” including the fact that it was murder will be substituted with one for “voluntary manslaughter” which avoids the label
too easy to get for those who killed in anger, whilst very difficult for those who killed in fear to of “murderer” and gives a judge the whole range of sentencing options from absolute
get. It was accused of being discriminatory to women because the requirement that any loss of discharged to a discretionary life sentence.
The defendant will raise the defence, the judge will decide whether to put it to the jury
control, caused by things said/done or a combination of both) had to be “sudden”. Women
and the prosecution will try to disprove the partial defence.
tend to have a slow burn reaction perhaps with a time delay between the provocative
(The defendant who has committed a murder could raise both partial defences; loss of
behaviour and the response/killing, whereas the typical male reaction is sudden. This meant
control and diminished responsibility
that many women in abusive relationships were unable to access the defence. Women who
failed to get the defence under the old law are Sara Thornton (1992), Emma Humphries and
Mrs Aluwahlia (2002)- denied provocation because there was a cooling off period and forced to
call their mental health into question and rely on the defence of DR. Their cases were handled Summary of the key elements/parts/requirements for loss of control
by the Criminal Appeals Review Committee following their serving years in prison for murder. There must have been a loss of control by the defendant (which need not be sudden)
Another concern about the old law of provocation was the vacillation by the courts between The loss of control must have been caused by one of a recognised triggers (1) things
an objective and subjective test for the defence… said or done (or a combination of the two), provided that they were sufficiently grave
As a result of concerns the law on the special defences for murder was included in the Law (serious) in character to cause D a justifiable sense of being wronged, (2) fear of
Commission’s 2006 Report on Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide which resulted in an serious violence to the defendant or another identifiable person or (3) a combination
overhaul of the special defences. The old defence of provocation was abolished and replaced of the other triggers.
with a new partial/special defence called “loss of control”. Loss of control is defined & its The jury applies a “standard of control test”. They consider whether a person of D’s
requirements/elements are set out in S54-56 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 which came age and sex, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint would have reacted
into force in 2010. in the same or similar way to the D in the same circumstances.
Voluntary Manslaughter – Loss
of Control Requirement (element) 2:- Caused by one of the recognised triggers S55 (1)
The loss of control has to have been caused by one of the qualifying triggers.
Requirement (element) 1:- Loss of Control There are 2 main triggers:
S54 (1) (a) The Killing must result from a loss of self-control. Loss of self- S55 (3) (D’s fear of serious violence towards himself (D) or another identifiable person.
restraint is not enough( giving in to someone’s pleas to die) This will help someone like Martin who could now get LOC where self-defence failed
S54 (2) the loss of control no longer need be sudden. So perhaps women (excessive force). It could also help battered women/those in abusive relationships (Aluwahlia
who have suffered a loss of control after years of cumulative abuse will now etc.)
benefit from the defence (Aluwahlia (petrol on husband), Thornton and S55 (4) things said or done (or a combination of both) done by the victim which (a)
Emma Humphreys could not get provocation in the 1990’s and had to rely were grave in character (have to be serious enough) and (b) cause D to have a
on DR). justifiable sense of being wronged. (*Under the new law Doughty (crying baby) would not
However the longer the time delay between the loss of control and the get the partial defence but Camplin (boy abused and taunted by older man who killed him with
killing will have an effect and it will be up to the jury to decide if the loss of chapatti pan) would.
control partial defence is still available if there is a cooling off period. The Zebedee where D killed elderly father who kept whistling, soiled himself and made a gesture which
Ministry for Justice Paper said the longer the delay the less likely it was that reminded D of abuse as a child… were not considered sufficiently grave/serious and D was denied
LOC would be available. the defence of L of C.
Excluded triggers
Note Sexual infidelity is excluded as a trigger S55 (6). Things said or done which are sexual infidelity is the
sole trigger it must be excluded. The cases of Clinton and Dawes have confirmed this. However where
D must not be acting in a considered desire for revenge S54 (4). If D is there are other matters and the sexual infidelity is an integral part of the context where there are other
acting in revenge, the partial defence of LOC is not available. factors which might be qualifying triggers. Revenge- see earlier: Clinton said infidelity should be
ignored if it is the only trigger- but it’s unrealistic to exclude it if it forms part of other factors.
History/Background- OLD LAW Loss of control is a partial defence.
Loss of control is 1 of the 2 special defences only available for the offence of murder which we It is only available for murder where the D has the required AR (death of a human
study (rules + evaluation) for AQA A2 Law. being) and the MR (intention to kill/cause GBH- direct or oblique intention).
Loss of control replaced the old partial defence of provocation which was defined at S3 of the The effect of a D successfully raising this partial defence is that their conviction for
Homicide Act 1957. There were many criticisms of “provocation” including the fact that it was murder will be substituted with one for “voluntary manslaughter” which avoids the label
too easy to get for those who killed in anger, whilst very difficult for those who killed in fear to of “murderer” and gives a judge the whole range of sentencing options from absolute
get. It was accused of being discriminatory to women because the requirement that any loss of discharged to a discretionary life sentence.
The defendant will raise the defence, the judge will decide whether to put it to the jury
control, caused by things said/done or a combination of both) had to be “sudden”. Women
and the prosecution will try to disprove the partial defence.
tend to have a slow burn reaction perhaps with a time delay between the provocative
(The defendant who has committed a murder could raise both partial defences; loss of
behaviour and the response/killing, whereas the typical male reaction is sudden. This meant
control and diminished responsibility
that many women in abusive relationships were unable to access the defence. Women who
failed to get the defence under the old law are Sara Thornton (1992), Emma Humphries and
Mrs Aluwahlia (2002)- denied provocation because there was a cooling off period and forced to
call their mental health into question and rely on the defence of DR. Their cases were handled Summary of the key elements/parts/requirements for loss of control
by the Criminal Appeals Review Committee following their serving years in prison for murder. There must have been a loss of control by the defendant (which need not be sudden)
Another concern about the old law of provocation was the vacillation by the courts between The loss of control must have been caused by one of a recognised triggers (1) things
an objective and subjective test for the defence… said or done (or a combination of the two), provided that they were sufficiently grave
As a result of concerns the law on the special defences for murder was included in the Law (serious) in character to cause D a justifiable sense of being wronged, (2) fear of
Commission’s 2006 Report on Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide which resulted in an serious violence to the defendant or another identifiable person or (3) a combination
overhaul of the special defences. The old defence of provocation was abolished and replaced of the other triggers.
with a new partial/special defence called “loss of control”. Loss of control is defined & its The jury applies a “standard of control test”. They consider whether a person of D’s
requirements/elements are set out in S54-56 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 which came age and sex, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint would have reacted
into force in 2010. in the same or similar way to the D in the same circumstances.
Voluntary Manslaughter – Loss
of Control Requirement (element) 2:- Caused by one of the recognised triggers S55 (1)
The loss of control has to have been caused by one of the qualifying triggers.
Requirement (element) 1:- Loss of Control There are 2 main triggers:
S54 (1) (a) The Killing must result from a loss of self-control. Loss of self- S55 (3) (D’s fear of serious violence towards himself (D) or another identifiable person.
restraint is not enough( giving in to someone’s pleas to die) This will help someone like Martin who could now get LOC where self-defence failed
S54 (2) the loss of control no longer need be sudden. So perhaps women (excessive force). It could also help battered women/those in abusive relationships (Aluwahlia
who have suffered a loss of control after years of cumulative abuse will now etc.)
benefit from the defence (Aluwahlia (petrol on husband), Thornton and S55 (4) things said or done (or a combination of both) done by the victim which (a)
Emma Humphreys could not get provocation in the 1990’s and had to rely were grave in character (have to be serious enough) and (b) cause D to have a
on DR). justifiable sense of being wronged. (*Under the new law Doughty (crying baby) would not
However the longer the time delay between the loss of control and the get the partial defence but Camplin (boy abused and taunted by older man who killed him with
killing will have an effect and it will be up to the jury to decide if the loss of chapatti pan) would.
control partial defence is still available if there is a cooling off period. The Zebedee where D killed elderly father who kept whistling, soiled himself and made a gesture which
Ministry for Justice Paper said the longer the delay the less likely it was that reminded D of abuse as a child… were not considered sufficiently grave/serious and D was denied
LOC would be available. the defence of L of C.
Excluded triggers
Note Sexual infidelity is excluded as a trigger S55 (6). Things said or done which are sexual infidelity is the
sole trigger it must be excluded. The cases of Clinton and Dawes have confirmed this. However where
D must not be acting in a considered desire for revenge S54 (4). If D is there are other matters and the sexual infidelity is an integral part of the context where there are other
acting in revenge, the partial defence of LOC is not available. factors which might be qualifying triggers. Revenge- see earlier: Clinton said infidelity should be
ignored if it is the only trigger- but it’s unrealistic to exclude it if it forms part of other factors.
