Murder and partial defence

Specific intent.

It can be taken into account as part of the overall context but cannot be relied upon on its own as a qualifying trigger.

A mandatory life sentence.

A statutory defence set out in s 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, amended by s 52 of the CJA 2009.

The actus reus and mens rea of homicide beyond a reasonable doubt.

The law changed to allow defendants to prove they lost control at the time of the killing, even if the reaction built up over time.

The relationship between murder and manslaughter.

That they are less morally culpable than deliberate murderers.

No, it only applies to murder.

Eithne 'snaps' and reacts instantly to Aaron's assault by stabbing him.

Dwayne was acutely intoxicated from illegal substances and did not suffer from alcoholism or a dependency-related condition.

Accepted classification systems such as the World Health Organisation’s International Classification of Diseases.

The conventional burden of proof applies; the accused must produce some evidence, after which the burden shifts to the prosecution to disprove loss of control beyond reasonable doubt.

A 19-year-old male with normal self-restraint would not stab someone for a polite smile.

The unlawful causing of the victim's death by the accused.

When the brain stem has died.

That the homicide was caused by her mental abnormality.

Loss of control.

That the defendant unlawfully caused the death of a human being and intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

They can be recalled to prison if they commit a further offence.

Actus reus and mens rea, which are the same as for murder.

It refers to a mental state that is not typical and is interpreted widely, often determined by expert medical evidence.

It cannot be the sole qualifying trigger but may be part of a broader context.

It requires a similar reaction of a person of the same age and sex as the defendant.

Medical evidence is crucial in determining whether a defendant's mental responsibility was substantially impaired due to a recognized medical condition.

Ahluwalia was unsuccessful in reducing her criminal liability to manslaughter because the loss of control had to be sudden.

When death or serious harm is not the primary aim, but is a virtually certain consequence of the defendant's actions.

1. Abnormality of mental functioning; 2. Arising from a recognised medical condition; 3. Substantially impairing the defendant’s ability to understand their conduct, form rational judgment, or exercise self-control; 4. Providing an explanation for the defendant’s act or omission in the killing.

On a balance of probabilities, meaning it must be more likely than not that they were suffering from diminished responsibility at the time of the killing.

Judge Coke.

They must be proven before considering any partial defences.

An offender who voluntarily takes alcohol or drugs is generally not excused from responsibility for their actions.

The accused is still liable for voluntary manslaughter.

That the defendant was both the factual and legal cause of the victim’s death.

The defendant must show that there is a substantial impairment of their mental functioning.

The term 'substantial' means 'important or weighty'.

Whether there has been a substantial impairment is a question of fact for the jury.

Time of day, power of the firework, and whether Parman was aware Toby was in the house.

It means 'really serious harm'.

Shuhab stabs his friend believing he will come back to life, showing he does not understand the fatal consequences.

A killing that is justified, such as a police officer shooting a terrorist to prevent a crime.

Paranoid personality disorder.

1. The defendant 'snaps'; 2. Their reaction is a response to a culmination of events, such as incidents of abuse.

The 'fear' and 'anger' triggers.

It must be the result of one of the qualifying triggers or a combination of both.

No, the defendant cannot rely on the triggers if they incited the situation.

Causing the death of a human being.

The medical condition must provide an explanation for the act of killing.

It provided guidance on determining the necessary intent in murder cases.

An abnormality of mental functioning that substantially impairs the defendant's ability to form a rational judgment, understand the nature of their conduct, or exercise self-control.

The unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s peace.

The intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

No, murder is a crime of specific intent and cannot be committed recklessly.

Exceptional stressors can contribute to a defendant's inability to make rational judgments or exercise self-control, impacting their culpability.

It is subjectively assessed; the jury must be satisfied the accused was genuinely afraid, even if the fear is not reasonable.

Dwayne suffered from schizophrenia, and his psychotic state was triggered by voluntary intoxication, allowing for a partial defence.

He found his daughter being raped, which caused him to attack the assailant.

Murder.

It requires an understanding of the processes going through the defendant’s mind, which only an expert is likely to have.

The accused must cause the death of a human being.

Sections 54 and 55 of the CJA 2009.

D must be genuinely afraid due to circumstances of an extremely grave character.

It requires that the loss of control was attributable to the defendant's fear of serious violence from the victim.

It must arise from a recognised medical condition supported by medical evidence.

The judge determines if it is justifiable before it goes to the jury.

Examples include depression, schizophrenia, post-traumatic stress disorder, and physical conditions like diabetes and epilepsy.

Approximately 60%.

Ariana's history of sexual abuse and the immediate threat posed by Richard.

As soon as it is born and has an existence independent of the mother.

When death or grievous bodily harm is the defendant’s aim or purpose.

If the defendant acted in a considered desire for revenge.

1. Arming themselves with a weapon; 2. Evidence of planning; 3. Significant delay between provocation and killing.

The jury, after considering the evidence presented.

Rick directly intends for Toby to die.

It outlines the conditions under which anger or fear can be considered qualifying triggers for loss of control.

To ensure that not everyone with a psychiatric condition automatically succeeds in the defence.

The defendant must show they have a recognized medical condition that substantially impaired their ability to understand their conduct, form rational judgments, or exercise self-control.

1. Understanding the nature of their conduct, 2) Forming a rational judgment, 3) Exercising self-control.

As a loss of the ability to act in accordance with considered judgment or a loss of normal powers of reasoning.

They are defences only to murder.

Because sexual infidelity alone is disregarded as a qualifying trigger.

Taunts about his suicidal thoughts and his wife's attitude towards their children, combined with sexual infidelity.

Blackman's original murder conviction was overturned on appeal due to psychiatric evaluations indicating he suffered from an adjustment disorder.

D must have an objective sense of being seriously wronged, considering the overall context.

Malice aforethought, which means intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

Neither anger nor fear can be considered as qualifying triggers.

The rule of law and a peaceful society.

By putting 'clear water' between the two partial defenses.

No, there is no requirement for the loss of control to be sudden.

The defendant's ability to do particular things must be substantially impaired.

It pertains to circumstances of an extremely grave character that cause the defendant to feel seriously wronged.

1. The defendant must lose self-control; 2) The loss of control must have a qualifying trigger; 3) A person of the defendant’s sex and age, with normal tolerance and self-restraint, might have reacted similarly.

A person of D’s age and sex, with normal tolerance and self-restraint, might have reacted similarly to D.

Because he planned his wife's death, indicating he did not actually lose self-control.

Unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter.

He believed her relationship would bring shame to his family, constituting a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.

Yes, it can evolve as medical understanding increases.

He was suffering from a neurosis related to a mistaken belief about his daughter.

Whether the particular defendant actually lost self-control.

An offence where the accused causes death without the necessary mens rea for murder.

Marnie's taunts about Nyofi's sexual orientation and racial background.

Successfully overcome all three hurdles of loss of control.

Younger individuals generally have a lower capacity for self-control and emotional regulation.

A form of homicide where mitigating factors excuse the defendant’s actions.

It illustrates the complexity of culpability in homicide, as Ahluwalia was a victim of prolonged abuse before killing her husband, leading to her conviction being reduced to manslaughter.

Martin was convicted of manslaughter after shooting a fleeing burglar, demonstrating that he was morally culpable despite some sympathy for his situation.

Sexual infidelity cannot be relied upon alone as a qualifying trigger, but may be relevant when assessing other potential triggers.

She hit her boyfriend over the head in a jealous rage without understanding the nature of her conduct.

Homicide.

That she might have killed her abuser when taunted, considering her normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint.

It will not be taken into account; she will be assessed as if she were sober.

The jury must conclude that the defendant has satisfied the elements of the crime of murder.

It includes all circumstances except those that only relate to the defendant's general capacity for tolerance and self-restraint.

In R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2.

Yes, it may be considered if it forms an essential part of the context.

The normal person will have the same history and characteristics as Nyofi relevant to the qualifying triggers.

Because the jury is unlikely to consider his belief in the justifiability of his actions as reasonable.

It states that sexual infidelity is to be disregarded as a qualifying trigger.

In manslaughter, the judge has discretion in sentencing and there is no mandatory life sentence.

She could successfully rely on the partial defence of loss of control to reduce her liability to manslaughter.

Voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

He can rely on the partial defense to reduce his criminal liability to manslaughter.

Marnie is leaving Nyofi and taking their daughter Jemma with her.

Diminished responsibility, loss of control, and suicide pact.

That a person of Nyofi's sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance might have reacted similarly under the circumstances.

It may lead to a reduction in moral culpability, as seen in the case of R v Ahluwalia.

It shows that a person of the defendant's age and sex with a degree of tolerance and self-restraint might have reacted similarly in those circumstances.