Fatal Offences – Voluntary
Manslaughter – Loss of Control
Voluntary Manslaughter
• Applies when definition of murder (both AR and MR) has been
satisfied
• They are partial defences to a charge of murder which reduces the
offence to manslaughter and allows the judge more discretion in
sentencing
• D can’t be charged with involuntary manslaughter – charged with
murder then tries to plead one of the two types of voluntary
manslaughter as a partial defence
• 2 types of Voluntary Manslaughter:
• Loss of Control
• Diminished Responsibility
Definition of Loss of Control
• Previous offence was Provocation – D kills whilst suffering a sudden
and temporary loss of control on account of provoking words or
conduct and acts as a reasonable person would have done in the
situation
• S.54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 – New defence of loss of control:
• D’s acts or omissions resulted from D’s loss of self-control
• Loss of control had a qualifying trigger
• A person of D’s age and sex, with a normal degree of tolerance and selfrestraint and in the circumstances of D might have reacted in the same or a
similar way
The Loss of Control
• S.54(2) – loss of control does not have to be sudden (unlike provocation) – can be a time delay between
qualifying trigger and the reaction of D in killing the victim
• But – still has to lose self-control – so the longer the delay, the less likely jury will believe that killing resulted
from loss of self-control
• Ibrams and Gregory – crime had been planned over a number of days - defence will not work where D is
motivated by a desire for revenge – S.54(4) excludes the defence where killing is motivated by a considered
desire for revenge
• Baillie – where there is a gap between the trigger and the killing, defence will work if D can prove he
remained out of control throughout the relevant period
• Main reason for removing the requirement for loss of control to be sudden is defence of provocation was
difficult to prove in cases of women who killed partners after suffering from domestic violence as women in
abusive relationships are less likely to respond with violence immediately.
• Ahluwalia – (decided under old law) – D waited for husband to fall asleep before killing him - too long a delay
between abuse from husband and the killing for defence of provocation to work (although defence of
diminished responsibility did work)
• Thornton – (decided under old law) – D suffered violence from husband over many months and although final
incident may not have been enough to cause D to lose self-control, it needed to be considered in the context
of other incidents - “last straw” could trigger final loss of self-control
The Qualifying Triggers
• Loss of control must result from one of the triggers identified in S.55:
• Fear of serious violence from victim; or
• Things done and/or said which constituted circumstances of a grave character
and also caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged; or
• A combination of both triggers
The Qualifying Triggers – fear of serious
violence from victim
• Must be genuine fear of serious violence
• Subjective test – fear does not need to be reasonable and it does not need to be
shown that there was any actual violence
• But jury needs to be convinced fear was genuine – threat of a minor assault
would not be serious even if D perceived it to be
• Fear must be of violence to D or an identifiable person – not against people in
general
• No requirement that violence must be imminent but where the threat is
anticipated at a much later and unspecified time, the defence is unlikely to
succeed
• Loss of control from fear of serious violence normally pleaded where the amount
of force used is considered excessive in response to the threat (e.g. Ahluwalia
where husband was asleep when D attacked him) and therefore the total defence
of self-defence (which would lead to acquittal) can’t be used
The Qualifying Triggers – grave character and
justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
• Known as anger trigger
• More restrictive than previous law of provocation where there were
no restrictions on what constituted provoking words or actions –
concern that very trivial acts could be cited as reason to lead to loss
of control – e.g. Doughty – crying baby was said to amount to
provocation
• In new law, D has to satisfy 2 aspects:
• Circumstances were of a grave character
• He had a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
• Assessed objectively – jury decides what a reasonable person would
think
Qualifying Triggers – a Combination of both
triggers
• Although each trigger alone would be insufficient, when combined
they caused D to lose control
Qualifying Triggers - Restrictions
• S.55 – restrictions of qualifying triggers:
• Incitement
• Sexual Infidelity
• Revenge
Qualifying Triggers – Restrictions - Incitement
• D’s fear of serious violence to be disregarded if D deliberately incited
the violence from the victim – e.g. D taunts the victim in order to
provoke the victim into saying/doing something that might justify D
killing him
• Defence unavailable to D incites either of the qualifying triggers
Qualifying Triggers – Restrictions – Sexual
Infidelity
• Change in new law – sexual infidelity must be disregarded as a potential
trigger
• Only the sexual infidelity needs to be disregarded – other related
circumstances of an extremely grave character might still amount to a
qualifying trigger if they caused D to have a justifiable sense of being
seriously wronged
• E.g. Clinton – wife left D and taunted him with details of her sexual exploits,
said she didn’t want the children to lie with her, and after seeing that D had
been looking at websites about committing suicide, remarked that he
would not have the guts to do it – Court held that where sexual infidelity is
not the only trigger, there is not a total exclusion and the defence can be
put to the jury
Objective Test
• Person of D’s age and sex, with normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and
in the circumstances of D might have reacted in the same or a similar way
• Camplin – age and sex of D is relevant
• D’s circumstances can be taken into account apart from those that affect his
capacity for tolerance and self-restraint
• Jury can consider that a D had a history of being abused by their partner (e.g.
Ahluwalia, Thornton) as these amount to D’s circumstances
• Mohammed - but if D was simply bad-tempered and prone to violence this is to
be disregarded as circumstances as this means he does not have a normal degree
of tolerance and self-restraint
• Holley – alcoholism and depression – to be disregarded as circumstances as these
affect tolerance and self-restraint
• Most of the times this defence will be withheld from the jury as it is only in
exceptional circumstances that a person of normal tolerance and self-restrain is
driven to kill
Burden of Proof
• D must raise sufficient evidence to support the defence otherwise
judge can refuse to let the jury consider the defence
• If evidence is put to jury, burden of disproving it beyond reasonable
doubt is on the prosecution
Summary – Points to Consider When Using
the Defence of Loss of Control
1. Did D actually lose self-control?
2. Was there a delay between the incident causing the loss of control
and the killing? Is this relevant?
3. Did D lose control because of one of the qualifying triggers?
4. Did D incite the victim?
5. Did D lose control because of sexual infidelity? If so, are there any
other factors that could be considered?
6. Was D acting out of a considered desire for revenge?
7. Would a person with D’s characteristics, in D’s circumstances, and a
normal level of tolerance have acted the way D did?