P2 M2 – Loss of Control
The defendant Vlad may have a defence of loss of self control (LOC)
under sections 45 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The
defence will just lower the crime from murder to manslaughter, the
judge can give a sentence up to the maximum which is life in
prison.
The first element which will need to be satisfied is that Vlad the defendant will need to lose self-control. This is
mentioned S.54 (1A) in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the act states “D's acts and omissions in doing or
being a party to the killing resulted from D's loss of self-control,” the act doesn’t define what loss of control
means and therefore it is for the jury to decide if the defendant did lose control. The act states that the loss of
control doesn’t need to be sudden, so it could carry on for some time. Could be like a slow burn effect. Under
S.54 (4) the act states that the defence cannot be allowed when someone will attack someone to get revenge.
There are two key issues which can be expressed, firstly the judge will look out how much time has passed
between the event and killing this could suggest that the defendant hasn’t lost self-control. The longer the time
of the event is the more unlikely it will be considered as loss of control. Factors such as waiting for someone to
sleep isn’t part of loss of control. Second point is that the defendant was acting the way he did as he wanted to
get revenge, this isn’t the same as loss of control. If the court find evidence that there was premeditation or
planning, then it will be difficult for the defendant to prove that he had lost self-control. The court of appeal
have been changing their decisions for every different case which comes up. It is reluctant to prove that
someone has lost control. In R V Jewell the court of appeal said that a person may lose control if they “lost their
ability to maintain his actions in accordance with considered judgement. But then in the case of R V Dawes the
court of appeal said that normal irritation and serious anger wasn’t enough. In the case of R V Jewell, the
defendant was being intimidated by people that his friend said that he only had two days to live. So, the
defendant had gone to his father’s house and he took a shotgun and ammunition. The defendant had stayed up
all night and had wrote to all his neighbours that to look after his cat and left them the keys. In the morning the
defendant had shot his friend in point blank range. He shot him once in the head and the other time in his lower
body. He said in court that he had shot his friend like he was in a dream. In the court he had said that he didn’t
have control and he didn’t intentionally shoot his friend. The judge was deciding whether he should direct the
jury to a loss of control defence but then decided that there was not enough evidence of this. His appeal was also
rejected by the court of appeal. His defence had failed because he was planning the event for a long time. He
was prepared to shoot his friend. On the other hand, in the case of R V Sands, the defendant was a mother of 5
children who had lived in authority houses. Also living next to them was a 77-year-old man who had been
charged with sexual abuse which was committed to her 2 children. The charge was that the defendant had
touched the defendant’s sons. The victim was granted bail by the courts and was allowed back to his house. The
mother saw this and moved in with her mother. But they were living in one room with 5 children. There were
schooling issues and one of the sons had complained again of the man. The women had gone back to her flat she
changed her clothes and went to the man as he was smirking, and he shouted something about her children. She
took a knife and confronted the man. She stabbed the man 8 times and left him to bleed to death. After the
stabbing she had changed her clothes and went to her mother’s house and later she turned her self in. she said
that she didn’t have the intention to kill him she just wanted him to accept what he did, so his children didn’t
need to give evidence against him. The court was convinced with her defence of loss of control. This was
because she was looking after her children who were being confronted by this man. So, in the case of Vlad,
Vlad had lost self-control as the women was spreading rumours about him which would offend him. when
he had gone to the women’s house, when he confronted the women, she just laughed at him and for this
reason he had lost control. So, Vlad will be able to use this defence. The defendant only lost control when
he had confronted her at her house. However, he will not be able to use the defence of revenge as he
hadn’t intended to cause harm to the women. He just wanted to talk to her about what she was doing.
The second element which the court will need to prove is from S.54 (1B) this was that the loss of control had a
qualifying trigger. The first qualifying trigger is the fear of violence. This can be towards the defendant or to
someone else, the full list is mentioned in section 55 (3). This also known as the ‘fear’ trigger, this is proved
The defendant Vlad may have a defence of loss of self control (LOC)
under sections 45 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The
defence will just lower the crime from murder to manslaughter, the
judge can give a sentence up to the maximum which is life in
prison.
The first element which will need to be satisfied is that Vlad the defendant will need to lose self-control. This is
mentioned S.54 (1A) in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the act states “D's acts and omissions in doing or
being a party to the killing resulted from D's loss of self-control,” the act doesn’t define what loss of control
means and therefore it is for the jury to decide if the defendant did lose control. The act states that the loss of
control doesn’t need to be sudden, so it could carry on for some time. Could be like a slow burn effect. Under
S.54 (4) the act states that the defence cannot be allowed when someone will attack someone to get revenge.
There are two key issues which can be expressed, firstly the judge will look out how much time has passed
between the event and killing this could suggest that the defendant hasn’t lost self-control. The longer the time
of the event is the more unlikely it will be considered as loss of control. Factors such as waiting for someone to
sleep isn’t part of loss of control. Second point is that the defendant was acting the way he did as he wanted to
get revenge, this isn’t the same as loss of control. If the court find evidence that there was premeditation or
planning, then it will be difficult for the defendant to prove that he had lost self-control. The court of appeal
have been changing their decisions for every different case which comes up. It is reluctant to prove that
someone has lost control. In R V Jewell the court of appeal said that a person may lose control if they “lost their
ability to maintain his actions in accordance with considered judgement. But then in the case of R V Dawes the
court of appeal said that normal irritation and serious anger wasn’t enough. In the case of R V Jewell, the
defendant was being intimidated by people that his friend said that he only had two days to live. So, the
defendant had gone to his father’s house and he took a shotgun and ammunition. The defendant had stayed up
all night and had wrote to all his neighbours that to look after his cat and left them the keys. In the morning the
defendant had shot his friend in point blank range. He shot him once in the head and the other time in his lower
body. He said in court that he had shot his friend like he was in a dream. In the court he had said that he didn’t
have control and he didn’t intentionally shoot his friend. The judge was deciding whether he should direct the
jury to a loss of control defence but then decided that there was not enough evidence of this. His appeal was also
rejected by the court of appeal. His defence had failed because he was planning the event for a long time. He
was prepared to shoot his friend. On the other hand, in the case of R V Sands, the defendant was a mother of 5
children who had lived in authority houses. Also living next to them was a 77-year-old man who had been
charged with sexual abuse which was committed to her 2 children. The charge was that the defendant had
touched the defendant’s sons. The victim was granted bail by the courts and was allowed back to his house. The
mother saw this and moved in with her mother. But they were living in one room with 5 children. There were
schooling issues and one of the sons had complained again of the man. The women had gone back to her flat she
changed her clothes and went to the man as he was smirking, and he shouted something about her children. She
took a knife and confronted the man. She stabbed the man 8 times and left him to bleed to death. After the
stabbing she had changed her clothes and went to her mother’s house and later she turned her self in. she said
that she didn’t have the intention to kill him she just wanted him to accept what he did, so his children didn’t
need to give evidence against him. The court was convinced with her defence of loss of control. This was
because she was looking after her children who were being confronted by this man. So, in the case of Vlad,
Vlad had lost self-control as the women was spreading rumours about him which would offend him. when
he had gone to the women’s house, when he confronted the women, she just laughed at him and for this
reason he had lost control. So, Vlad will be able to use this defence. The defendant only lost control when
he had confronted her at her house. However, he will not be able to use the defence of revenge as he
hadn’t intended to cause harm to the women. He just wanted to talk to her about what she was doing.
The second element which the court will need to prove is from S.54 (1B) this was that the loss of control had a
qualifying trigger. The first qualifying trigger is the fear of violence. This can be towards the defendant or to
someone else, the full list is mentioned in section 55 (3). This also known as the ‘fear’ trigger, this is proved
