Oxford Law Summer Course
The law on voluntary manslaughter in the UK is not fit for
purpose. Reform is required to rectify failures in legislation.” To
what extent is the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 inadequate
within contemporary society? When answering this question,
consider the advantages and disadvantages of the defenses of
loss of control and diminished responsibility.
Merna Abdelsalam
17th August, 2022
Word Count: 2376
Murder is a huge and some would argue an unforgivable crime, which is why it is
punished with an automatic life sentence in the United Kingdom, but there are some instances
where people lose control or are not directly responsible for the murders they commit, which is
why in these instances; a charge of murder can be demoted to a charge of voluntary
manslaughter. Voluntary Manslaughter is when killing is not murder due to circumstances like
loss of control or diminished responsibility. In the UK, the punishment for the loss of control
voluntary manslaughter is up to 14 years of imprisonment, while the punishment of diminished
responsibility voluntary manslaughter is up to 24 years of imprisonment (Draycott Browne),
making it a harsh punishment, but less severe than murder. The Coroners and Justice Act of 2009
was an act to amend criminal law and change the way deaths are viewed and punished, it allows
the Lord Chancellor to make these orders. Voluntary manslaughter was created in the Homicide
Act of 1957, and then the law commission stated that it should be reviewed and updated and
created a report in 2006, and then these recommendations were taken into account and they led
to the creation of The Coroners and Justice Act of 2009 (Legislation.gov.uk). It mostly changed
the wording of the laws due to them being unclear, but it also added some new conditions to
diminished responsibility. It also added the condition of a provocative act to the laws under the
loss of control. Although the law of voluntary manslaughter may not be fit for purpose since in
terms of Actus Reus, murder and voluntary manslaughter, ultimately, the circumstances a
defendant was facing should be considered to ensure true justice and the Coroners and Justice act
of 2009 is mostly, but not entirely adequate for modern society as it made the laws from the
Homicide Act of 1957 clearer and more fitting for today’s world, but it also has some gaps and
rules that cancel each other out.
There are certain instances where people tend to lose control of their consciousness and
kill people, whether it was out of anger or other emotions, such as fear, this is referred to as loss
of control, and it is one of the types of voluntary manslaughter defenses (Laver). Multiple
conditions need to be followed to make sure that the defendant gets a fair ruling, whether it is
murder or voluntary manslaughter. The Coroners and Justice Act of 2009 included these
conditions in both articles 54 and 55 of the Act. Firstly, in article 54, the defendant must show
that there was a qualifying trigger and that a person of the same age and gender as the defendant
would do the same in the defendant’s situation, as loss of control is subjective. The jury needs to
witness the crime through the eyes of the defendant, not the eyes of a reasonable person. So for
example, if a person of low restraint was the defendant, and they are being judged in comparison
with a person of normal self-restraint, it is unreliable. Another condition mentioned in article 54
is if the person acts out of revenge, the defense is not applicable, as it is a calculated attack. But
1
opposed to that, the article mentions that the timeline of the reaction does not matter as
sometimes under extreme circumstances; reactions are delayed (LawTeacher). Article 55
rehashes more on the qualifying trigger, the defendant must prove if this trigger is worth losing
control over, as it could be a loss of control, but it could be unjustified. The qualifying trigger
must fall under one of these categories: fear of serious violence, extreme provocative act, or a
combination of both. Firstly, for a defendant to fall under the category of fear or serious violence,
the defendant must have fully believed correctly or even incorrectly that an act of violence was
to be committed upon them (Crown Prosecution Service). Secondly, the category of a
provocative act, or being extremely wronged is extremely subjective and is only left for very
special cases. Acts of minor violence or damage of property are not applicable as they are not
acts of serious violence, but they could be to a related person to the defendant they were trying to
protect, such as their child. But on the other hand, in some special cases a minor act can be
considered for the defense if it aligns with the defendant’s history, if the act is a loss of control
due to a chain of events or multiple things that led to the defendant killing the person and that the
minor act was their ‘last straw’, it is considered for being voluntary manslaughter; this is referred
to as cumulative provocation (Study Rocket). The defense of loss of control is different from
self-defense as with self-defense, the defendant is left with no option, but to kill the victim, but
with loss of control voluntary manslaughter, the defendant had other options other than killing
the victim, but it could be just why they did so.
There are multiple people and experts of the law that have multiple fears over the use of
the defense of voluntary manslaughter, specifically loss of control. Specifically, they are afraid
that defendants can take advantage of the wording of the Coroners and Justice Act of 2009 and
claim that they lost control and that will not be true justice, but the court would not let that
happen. An example of a case in which a defendant attempted to take advantage of this defense
was R v. Hatter in 2013. There was a man named Mark Hatter, who was the boyfriend of Dawn
Blackhouse. He was a great boyfriend and he was extremely nice to her kids until he found out
that she had cheated on him with another man. He was furious and took a knife and went to her
house at midnight, he claimed to have the knife to assist him in lifting the carpet and the jury did
not believe him and it was ruled as murder, he appealed to the court as a claim that it was a loss
of control, after further analysis, his claim was rejected and his charge of murder remained
(E-law Cases). This case proves that the court is aware of defendants that are attempting to take
advantage of this defense since Mark Hatter lost his case, first, he claimed that it was an
accident, then appealed for loss of control, it was evident that while going at midnight with a
knife it was a revenge and calculated act, so he was still charged with murder and justice was
2
restored. On the other hand, there are multiple disadvantages to the conditions under the loss of
control, for example, first in Article 55, states that minor acts are not to be considered as a
qualifying trigger, but later states that they potentially could be if there is a chain of events that
leads to that minor act. This is a weakness of the defense's loss of control and the Coroners and
Justice as it is unclear and can be used as a loophole in court. Another instance in which
conditions cancel each other out is when Article 54 states that calculated acts are not to be
considered, but at the same time, the time difference between the qualifying trigger and the
killing is not considered, it gives the defendant a chance to lie and in some cases, it could be
unprovable whether the killer planned the murder or not.
Although the Coroners and Justice act had some weaknesses, it was also modernized by
updating the terms of diminished responsibility, which is the consideration of physical and
mental conditions when defendants kill someone. It is when a defendant has both Actus Reus and
Mens Reus, but there is a specific reason that is not intentional or reckless behind the Men's
Reus, meaning there was another influence. It also has the option of a hospital sentence to fix the
medical condition being faced. Diminished responsibility conditions are explained in Article 52
of the Coroners and Justice Act of 2009 (Browne). Firstly, all the elements of diminished
responsibility must happen consecutively, meaning one of these conditions cannot occur without
the other two. The first element by which diminished responsibility could be caused is an
abnormality of mental functioning, under the previous law it was called abnormality of the mind,
but currently, it is much more up to date. Essentially, it means whether the defendant’s mental
functioning was different from a reasonable person, it would be classified as abnormal, and it is
for the jury to decide. Secondly, this abnormality must be caused by a recognized medical
condition. By recognized, the act means recognized doctors that are experts. The updated
wording of the law in the Coroners and Justice of 2009 implies that the medical condition can be
either physical or psychological, meaning whether it is biological with a part of the brain, like
epilepsy, triggering a physical response and affects how your mind functions, or psychological
like depression, which affects decision making through mental health, and the last element of a
recognized medical condition is providing evidence that the defendant has that medical condition
(E-law resources). And lastly, the recognized medical condition must have led to a substantial
impairment. The word substantial is subjective, and the meaning of the word has to be decided
by the jury. The substantial impairment has to impact one of three things: understanding conduct,
forming a rational judgment, and self-control. Understanding conduct means that due to the
medical condition, the defendant did not understand what they were doing. Rational Judgment
means that the defendant has lost the ability to make a rational decision. A reasonable person
3
wants to commit a crime but understands the consequences, but a person without rational
judgment fails to consider the consequences. Lastly is self-control, a person might lose the ability
to consciously control what they do. For example, a person diagnosed with schizophrenia might
have hallucinations or be told by a voice in their head to do something (Law Insider). Another
concern taken into consideration when murder is committed is whether intoxication played a role
in the thought process of the defendant. If an act was committed while the defendant was
intoxicated, the 3 conditions still have to be considered. Firstly, if the person suffers from a
substantial impairment, but if it is not the result of a medical condition, meaning it is not
diminished responsibility. If the defendant does have a medical condition, if it is not triggered by
alcohol, the intoxication is not taken into account. In special cases, the condition is dependent on
intoxication, like alcohol dependency syndrome, which is an example of a situation where
intoxication could be taken into account because their medical condition is what led them to
drink (Juergens).
The defense of voluntary manslaughter, specifically the conditions of diminished
responsibility has multiple advantages, for example, their modern impression of the world. This
is shown due to how the Coroners and Justice Act changed the wording of the first condition of
diminished responsibility from ‘abnormality of the mind’ to ‘abnormality of mental functioning,
which is more inclusive and understandable in court. A case that proves this approach to R v
Byrne in 1960, before the Coroners and Justice Act of 2009, Berne was a man who had no
medical condition, but only the urge of killing, and he killed a young girl in a YWCA Hostel.
They classified it as an abnormality of mind, but with no evidence (E-lawresources). This
mistake would not occur now due to the modernization of the conditions of diminished
responsibility by the Coroners and Justice Act. A weakness of the conditions of diminished
responsibility is that it is heavily dependent on jury opinion and could be extremely subjective.
The Coroners and Justice Act does not define the meaning of substantial in substantial
impairment, meaning it is up for interpretation by the jury. This could greatly affect the outcome
of cases as juries are picked at random, it leaves the possibility that perhaps if there was a
different jury, the outcome would be different; making the conditions unfair and making the
Coroners and Justice Act inadequate in ways.
In conclusion, although murder is a severe crime, the circumstances of the defendant are
not taken into consideration, which led to the creation of voluntary manslaughter, which is when
a person is killed but is due to a killer’s loss of control or a medical condition in which the killer
does not have control of, referred to as diminished responsibility. This law was created in the
Homicide Act of 1957, but updated to suit the modern world by the Coroners and Justice Act of
4
2009. Loss of control is stated in Articles 54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act. It explains
how for a murder to be classified as voluntary manslaughter there has to be a qualifying trigger,
which proves that losing control in a situation like a defendant’s is fair and it needs to be
analyzed through a person of the same emotional control, age, and gender of the defendant to
ensure fairness. Diminished responsibility is mentioned in act 52 of the Coroners and Justice act.
It states that for a murder to be distinguished as voluntary manslaughter it needs to go through 3
stages, which are an abnormality in brain function, recognized medical condition, and substantial
impairment; all 3 stages have to occur simultaneously. People and experts have their doubts
about the loss of control defense, they believe that it could be taken advantage of, but cases like
R v. Hatter have proven that this will not occur. But on the other hand, the laws under Articles 54
and 55 slightly cancel each other out, like if a minor act is considered as a reason to lose control.
In consideration of diminished responsibility, it has advantages due to the Coroners and Justice
Act’s success in modernizing and considering psychological conditions that were not considered
in 1957, and this is shown in the case R v. Berne. Despite that, it is heavily jury opinion
dependent, making it extremely subjective and making the outcome slightly unreliable.
5
Works Cited
Browne, Draycott. “Voluntary Manslaughter | What Is It? | Sentencing Guidelines.” Draycott Browne,
https://www.draycottbrowne.co.uk/serious-crime/manslaughter-murder/voluntary-manslaughter.
Accessed 17 August 2022.
Crown Prosecution Service. “Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter.” The Crown Prosecution Service, 18
March 2019, https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter.
Accessed 17 August 2022.
Draycott Browne. “Voluntary Manslaughter | What Is It? | Sentencing Guidelines.” Draycott Browne,
https://www.draycottbrowne.co.uk/serious-crime/manslaughter-murder/voluntary-manslaughter.
Accessed 17 August 2022.
E-law Cases. “http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases.” E-lawresources,
https://e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/R-v-Hatter.php. Accessed 17 August 2022.
E-lawresources. “R v Byrne.” E-lawresources, http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Byrne.php.
Accessed 17 August 2022.
E-lawresources. “Voluntary manslaughter- diminished responsibility.” E-lawresources,
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Diminished-responsibility.php. Accessed 17 August 2022.
Juergens, Jeffrey. “Alcohol-Related Crime.” Addiction Center, 20 October 2017,
https://www.addictioncenter.com/alcohol/alcohol-related-crime/. Accessed 17 August 2022.
Laver, Nicola. “Loss of Control, Provocation and the Criminal Law - InBrief.co.uk.” In Brief,
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/provocation-and-criminal-law/. Accessed 17 August
2022.
Law Insider. “Substantial impairment Definition.” Law Insider,
https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/substantial-impairment. Accessed 17 August 2022.
6
LawTeacher. “Voluntary Manslaughter and Diminished Responsibility Cases.” LawTeacher.net, 24
September 2021,
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/criminal-law/voluntary-manslaughter-diminished-res
ponsibility-7843.php. Accessed 17 August 2022.
Legislation.gov.uk. “Coroners and Justice Act 2009.” Legislation.gov.uk,
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/contents. Accessed 17 August 2022.
Study Rocket. “Voluntary Manslaughter – A Level Law AQA Revision – Study Rocket.” Study Rocket,
https://studyrocket.co.uk/revision/a-level-law-aqa/criminal-law/voluntary-manslaughter.
Accessed 17 August 2022.
7