Loss of control in the appeal courts

2021 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
G R Sullivan ◽  
H S Crombag ◽  
J J Child
Keyword(s):  
Self Control ◽  
Loss Of Control ◽  
Political Reality ◽  
Loss Of Self ◽  
Life Sentence ◽  
Control Requirement ◽  
Appeal Courts ◽  
Partial Defences

The article critiques the ‘loss of self-control’ requirement within Loss of Control partial defence, investigating its meaning (legally and scientifically), as well as its theoretical purpose. We contend that the partial defence currently performs a curious and problematic role, promoting questions of self-control, that are most effectively dealt with at a post-conviction stage (ie, at sentencing), into questions for the liability stage. This could be (perhaps best) resolved through the abolition of the mandatory life sentence for murder, and subsequent abolition of the partial defences, but it is accepted that the current political reality weighs heavily against this option. Looking for viable alternatives, we highlight the advantages of an approach that maximises discretion based on a full appraisal of potentially extenuating circumstances; before discussing how the current partial defence, including the requirement for a loss of self-control, should be interpreted to move the current law closer to this goal.

5. Murder

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Child ◽  
David Ormerod
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal Reform ◽  
Self Control ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Loss Of Self ◽  
Life Sentence ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Partial Defences ◽  
Controversial Nature

This chapter focuses on the offence of murder within the context of criminal law, with particular emphasis on its problematic and controversial nature. It first considers the definition of murder in terms of actus reus and mens rea. It then discusses the defences to murder, including general defences, specific complete defences (e.g. cases involving doctors and the treatment of terminally ill patients), and partial defences (e.g. loss of self-control, diminished responsibility, and suicide pact). It also outlines potential options for legal reform concerning the mandatory life sentence and the mens rea of murder, and concludes by presenting a structure for applying the actus reus and mens rea for murder to problem facts. Relevant cases are highlighted throughout the chapter, and there are also boxes that highlight common pitfalls to avoid and other areas of confusion for those new to the law.

5. Murder

2021 ◽  
pp. 150-167
Author(s):  
John Child ◽  
David Ormerod
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal Reform ◽  
Self Control ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Loss Of Self ◽  
Life Sentence ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Partial Defences ◽  
Controversial Nature

This chapter focuses on the offence of murder within the context of criminal law, with particular emphasis on its problematic and controversial nature. It first considers the definition of murder in terms of actus reus and mens rea. It then discusses the defences to murder, including general defences, specific complete defences, and partial defences (eg loss of self-control, diminished responsibility, and suicide pact). It also outlines potential options for legal reform concerning the mandatory life sentence and the mens rea of murder, and concludes by presenting a structure for applying the actus reus and mens rea for murder to problem facts. Relevant cases are highlighted throughout the chapter, and there are also boxes that highlight common pitfalls to avoid and other areas of confusion for those new to the law.

5. Murder

2019 ◽  
pp. 146-162
Author(s):  
John Child ◽  
David Ormerod
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal Reform ◽  
Self Control ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Loss Of Self ◽  
Life Sentence ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Partial Defences ◽  
Controversial Nature

This chapter focuses on the offence of murder within the context of criminal law, with particular emphasis on its problematic and controversial nature. It first considers the definition of murder in terms of actus reus and mens rea. It then discusses the defences to murder, including general defences, specific complete defences, and partial defences (e.g. loss of self-control, diminished responsibility, and suicide pact). It also outlines potential options for legal reform concerning the mandatory life sentence and the mens rea of murder, and concludes by presenting a structure for applying the actus reus and mens rea for murder to problem facts. Relevant cases are highlighted throughout the chapter, and there are also boxes that highlight common pitfalls to avoid and other areas of confusion for those new to the law.

13. Voluntary manslaughter

2021 ◽  
pp. 540-588
Author(s):  
David Ormerod ◽  
Karl Laird
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Self Control ◽  
The Other ◽  
Bodily Harm ◽  
Loss Of Self ◽  
Grievous Bodily Harm ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Partial Defences ◽  
Diminished Responsibility

Manslaughter is defined by common law as any unlawful homicide that is not murder. The offence is limited by murder at one extreme and accidental killing at the other. Manslaughter can be either ‘voluntary’ or ‘involuntary’. This chapter deals with voluntary manslaughter: this occurs when someone had the intention to kill or do grievous bodily harm, but relies on a partial defence to murder. The two partial defences considered in this chapter are loss of self- control and diminished responsibility (suicide pact is dealt with in Ch 15). This chapter scrutinizes the defences available to the accused and in particular the developing case law under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 on loss of control and diminished responsibility, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Golds and the series of Court of Appeal cases since that decision.

6. Manslaughter

2019 ◽  
pp. 163-217
Author(s):  
John Child ◽  
David Ormerod
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Legal Reform ◽  
Self Control ◽  
Loss Of Self ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
Corporate Manslaughter ◽  
Unlawful Conduct ◽  
Partial Defences ◽  
Diminished Responsibility

This chapter focuses on manslaughter, a common law homicide offence with an actus reus of unlawful conduct causing death. The chapter considers two categories of manslaughter: voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter arises where D commits murder, but meets the criteria for one of the partial defences: loss of self-control, diminished responsibility, or suicide pact. Involuntary manslaughter arises where D does not commit murder, but commits a relevant manslaughter offence: unlawful act manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter, or reckless manslaughter. The chapter explains statutory offences of unlawful killing (corporate manslaughter, driving causing death, infanticide, killing of a foetus) and concludes by outlining options for legal reform concerning voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and the structure of manslaughter offences. Relevant cases are highlighted with a summary of the main facts and judgment.

7. Homicide I

2020 ◽  
pp. 81-92
Author(s):  
Jonathan Herring
Keyword(s):  
Self Control ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Bodily Harm ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Loss Of Self ◽  
Serious Crime ◽  
Common Criticism ◽  
Grievous Bodily Harm ◽  
Partial Defences ◽  
Diminished Responsibility

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses murder, arguably the most serious crime in English law. Murder is where D kills V, and D intends to kill or intends to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). The most common criticism of the offence of murder is that the sentence is mandatory irrespective of whether the mens rea is the more serious form (intent to kill) or the less serious form (intent to cause GBH). There were three partial defences to murder under the Homicide Act 1957 (diminished responsibility, provocation, and suicide pact). There are three partial defences to murder under the Homicide Act 1957 as amended and the Coroners and Justice Act 2009; diminished responsibility, loss of self-control, and suicide pact. The chapter considers the first two in detail. These are partial defences because they result in a conviction for manslaughter rather than a full acquittal.

6. Manslaughter

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Child ◽  
David Ormerod
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Legal Reform ◽  
Self Control ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Loss Of Self ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
Corporate Manslaughter ◽  
Unlawful Conduct ◽  
Partial Defences ◽  
Diminished Responsibility

This chapter focuses on manslaughter, a common law homicide offence with an actus reus of unlawful conduct causing death. The spectrum of conduct and mens rea attracting liability for manslaughter covers all unlawful killings that fall short of murder. The chapter considers two categories of manslaughter: voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter arises where D commits murder, but meets the criteria for one of the partial defences: loss of self-control, diminished responsibility, or suicide pact. Involuntary manslaughter arises where D does not commit murder, but commits a relevant manslaughter offence: unlawful act manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter, or reckless manslaughter. The chapter explains statutory offences of unlawful killing (corporate manslaughter, driving causing death, infanticide, killing of a foetus) and concludes by outlining options for legal reform concerning voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and the structure of manslaughter offences. Relevant cases are highlighted with a summary of the main facts and judgment.

scholarly journals R v Clinton and others

2012 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-168
Author(s):  
James Slater
Keyword(s):  
Self Control ◽  
Loss Of Control ◽  
Sexual Infidelity ◽  
Loss Of Self ◽  
Chief Justice ◽  
Court Of Appeal

SEXUAL INFIDELITY AND LOSS OF SELF-CONTROL: CONTEXT OR CAMOUFLAGE?R v Clinton and others involved three appeals from trial on various matters concerning the “loss of control” partial defence to murder created by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 („the Act‟).1 This case commentary is concerned with the appeal of Jon Jacques Clinton, as it addressed the ambit of the Act‟s controversial exclusion of sexual infidelity from the grounds upon which a defendant can base her loss of self-control.2 The Court of Appeal‟s decision (Lord Chief Justice, Henriques J, Gloster J) is not uncontroversial itself, since it has significantly reduced the potential ambit of this exclusion.

Battered Women, Startled Householders and Psychological Self-Defence: Anglo-Australian Perspectives

2013 ◽  
Vol 77 (5) ◽  
pp. 433-457 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Wake
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Battered Women ◽  
New South ◽  
New South Wales ◽  
Self Control ◽  
Loss Of Control ◽  
Loss Of Self ◽  
South Wales ◽  
Self Defence

This article provides a timely and critical reappraisal of the interconnected, but discrete, doctrines of loss of self-control, under ss 54–56 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and self-defence within s. 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The loss of control conceptualisation renders it difficult for defendants to claim the partial defence where exculpatory self-defence has been rejected, and fear of serious violence is adduced. This doctrinal incoherence has been exacerbated by the fact that s. 43 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 effectively legitimises the use of disproportionate force in self-defence, but only in ‘startled householder’ cases. A more appropriate avenue of reform is provided by developments in Australian jurisdictions. This comparative extirpation engages the introduction of a new partial defence of self-preservation/psychological self-defence predicated on the notion of excessive utilisation of force in self-defence as in New South Wales, supplemented with a ‘social framework’ provision, akin to that in Victoria. The new defence would avoid the problems associated with requiring the abused woman to establish a loss of self-control and/or affording an affirmative defence in ‘startled householder’ cases.

7. Homicide I

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Herring
Keyword(s):  
Self Control ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Bodily Harm ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Loss Of Self ◽  
Serious Crime ◽  
Common Criticism ◽  
Grievous Bodily Harm ◽  
Partial Defences ◽  
Diminished Responsibility

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses murder, arguably the most serious crime in English law. Murder is where D kills V, and D intends to kill or intends to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). The most common criticism of the offence of murder is that the sentence is mandatory irrespective of whether the mens rea is the more serious form (intent to kill) or the less serious form (intent to cause GBH). There were three partial defences to murder under the Homicide Act 1957 (diminished responsibility, provocation, and suicide pact). There are three partial defences to murder under the Homicide Act 1957 as amended and the Coroners and Justice Act 2009; diminished responsibility, loss of self-control, and suicide pact. The chapter considers the first two in detail. These are partial defences because they result in a conviction for manslaughter rather than a full acquittal.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document