Criminal Law – Voluntary Manslaughter
- Voluntary manslaughter can only arise where the defendant satisfies
both the AR and MR of murder
- After this is established and assuming that D does not have a complete
defence (self-defence, insanity, etc.)
- It then becomes relevant to discuss the possibility of a partial defence
AR + MR of murder + partial defence (reduce murder to voluntary
manslaughter)
1. Loss of self-control: D kills while out of control owing to fear of serious
violence or a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged (Coroners and
Justice Act 2009, s54);
2. Diminished responsibility: D’s recognised medical condition led to an
abnormality of mind and caused her to kill (Homicide Act 1957, s2); and
3. Suicide pact: D kills V in pursuance of an agreement that they will both
die together (Homicide Act 1957, s4).
Loss of Self-Control
- D kills while out of control owing to fear of serious violence or a
justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
- Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s54
s54(1) Where a person (“D”) kills or is a party to the killing of another
(“V”), D is not to be convicted of murder if —
(a) D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing
resulted from D's loss of self-control,
(b) the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, and
(c) a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance
and self- restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in
the same or in a similar way to D…
(7) A person who, but for this section, would be liable to be convicted of
murder is liable instead to be convicted of manslaughter.
Loss of Self-Control: Origins
Loss of control replaces problematic defence of provocation
1. What types of conduct can qualify as provocation? Doughty (1986) 83 Cr
App R 319
2. What characteristics of D can be taken into account when deciding if her
reaction should qualify for the defence? Smith (Morgan) [2001] AC 146 –
, all characteristics could be taken into account; AG for Jersey v Holley
[2005] UKPC 23 – only the D’s age and sex should be taken into account
3. Is the defence gender biased in its operation? Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER
889
4. Is the defence designed as a partial justification (D acted wrongly, but as
others would have) or as a partial excuse (D’s weakness makes her
action less blameworthy)?
Loss of Self-Control: Exclusion
Coroners and Justice Act 2009
- S54(4) – where ‘D acted in a considered desire for revenge’ the defence
is not available
- For problem questions start by looking at this defence
Loss of Self-Control
- s54(1)(a) D’s role in the killing must have resulted from a loss of self-
control. – doesn’t have to be completely lack of control of their
movements (that would be automatism)
- s54(2) D’s loss of control need not be sudden. – the more pre-planned it
looks the harder is going to be to establish it
- Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889 (pre-2009 case); - D killed her abusive
husband after years of violence – she admitted murder and intended to
kill him – claimed partial defence of provocation under the old law – she
was convicted of manslaughter under the defence of diminished
responsibility
- Jewell [2014] EWCA Crim 414; - found liable for murder because
planning the killing undermined any basis for the loss of self-control – it
is difficult to establish the sudden and temporary loss of self-control
over a period of time
- s54(1)(b) D’s loss of self-control must have a qualifying trigger:
• s55(3) a fear of serious violence from V against D or another; or –
objective approach
• S55(4) a thing or things done or said (or both) which constituted
circumstances of an extremely grave character, and caused D to
have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged; or – subjective
and objective requirement
• S55(5) combination of (3) and (4).
• S55(6) Exclusions: qualifying triggers incited by D; sexual infidelity.
- Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2 – D killed his wife following an argument of
which she informed him of her affair with another man – there was a
- Voluntary manslaughter can only arise where the defendant satisfies
both the AR and MR of murder
- After this is established and assuming that D does not have a complete
defence (self-defence, insanity, etc.)
- It then becomes relevant to discuss the possibility of a partial defence
AR + MR of murder + partial defence (reduce murder to voluntary
manslaughter)
1. Loss of self-control: D kills while out of control owing to fear of serious
violence or a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged (Coroners and
Justice Act 2009, s54);
2. Diminished responsibility: D’s recognised medical condition led to an
abnormality of mind and caused her to kill (Homicide Act 1957, s2); and
3. Suicide pact: D kills V in pursuance of an agreement that they will both
die together (Homicide Act 1957, s4).
Loss of Self-Control
- D kills while out of control owing to fear of serious violence or a
justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
- Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s54
s54(1) Where a person (“D”) kills or is a party to the killing of another
(“V”), D is not to be convicted of murder if —
(a) D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing
resulted from D's loss of self-control,
(b) the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, and
(c) a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance
and self- restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in
the same or in a similar way to D…
(7) A person who, but for this section, would be liable to be convicted of
murder is liable instead to be convicted of manslaughter.
Loss of Self-Control: Origins
Loss of control replaces problematic defence of provocation
1. What types of conduct can qualify as provocation? Doughty (1986) 83 Cr
App R 319
2. What characteristics of D can be taken into account when deciding if her
reaction should qualify for the defence? Smith (Morgan) [2001] AC 146 –
, all characteristics could be taken into account; AG for Jersey v Holley
[2005] UKPC 23 – only the D’s age and sex should be taken into account
3. Is the defence gender biased in its operation? Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER
889
4. Is the defence designed as a partial justification (D acted wrongly, but as
others would have) or as a partial excuse (D’s weakness makes her
action less blameworthy)?
Loss of Self-Control: Exclusion
Coroners and Justice Act 2009
- S54(4) – where ‘D acted in a considered desire for revenge’ the defence
is not available
- For problem questions start by looking at this defence
Loss of Self-Control
- s54(1)(a) D’s role in the killing must have resulted from a loss of self-
control. – doesn’t have to be completely lack of control of their
movements (that would be automatism)
- s54(2) D’s loss of control need not be sudden. – the more pre-planned it
looks the harder is going to be to establish it
- Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889 (pre-2009 case); - D killed her abusive
husband after years of violence – she admitted murder and intended to
kill him – claimed partial defence of provocation under the old law – she
was convicted of manslaughter under the defence of diminished
responsibility
- Jewell [2014] EWCA Crim 414; - found liable for murder because
planning the killing undermined any basis for the loss of self-control – it
is difficult to establish the sudden and temporary loss of self-control
over a period of time
- s54(1)(b) D’s loss of self-control must have a qualifying trigger:
• s55(3) a fear of serious violence from V against D or another; or –
objective approach
• S55(4) a thing or things done or said (or both) which constituted
circumstances of an extremely grave character, and caused D to
have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged; or – subjective
and objective requirement
• S55(5) combination of (3) and (4).
• S55(6) Exclusions: qualifying triggers incited by D; sexual infidelity.
- Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2 – D killed his wife following an argument of
which she informed him of her affair with another man – there was a
