Law > QUESTIONS & ANSWERS > Criminal Law B (Voluntary Manslaughter) (All)

Criminal Law B (Voluntary Manslaughter)

Document Content and Description Below

Criminal Law B (Voluntary Manslaughter) Explain the concept and scope of intended application of Voluntary Manslaughter as a partial defense. - ✔✔Scope: Where D (is already guilty of murder) fulfills both the AR and MR of murder but also satisfies the VM partial defense, D's culpability is reduced from Murder to VM. Concept: Only 3 types of recognised VM- (1) Loss of Self-Control (2) Diminished Responsibility (3) Suicide Pact Explain who has the burden of responsibility in proving VM. - ✔✔1. LOSC: The evidential burden is on D , the legal burden on the prosecution. If D has some evidence the defence will stand unless the prosecution can assure the court beyond reasonable doubt that the defence is not true. 2. DR: The legal burden of proof of DR is on D on a balance of probabilities (Civil standard instead of crim law beyond reasonable doubt standard). Concept and criteria for Loss of Self-Control, including outlining exceptions to LOSC. - ✔✔Concept: 1. LOSC is defined in CJA 2009 s.54 and s.55, being the codified successor of the common law defense of provocation (abolished by CJA 2009 s.56) with substantial reform. 2. Provides a partial defense where D kills in circumstances of justified anger or acute fear which overwhelms D by a violent passion likely to similarly affect others in her position, thus justifying lowering D's level of culpability. 3. Good example of Law Com consultations and reports being accepted and acted upon (although with a number of alterations). Test (CJA 2009 s.54): (1) D's role in the killing must have resulted from a loss of self-control (2) D's loss of self-control must have been caused by a qualifying trigger: (a) a fear of serious violence from V against D or another OR (b) a thing or things done or said (or both) which constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character and caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. (3) A hypothetical person, of D's age and sex , and D's circumstances might have reacted in a similar way Exceptions: 1. CJA 2009 s.54(4): D must not have been acting in a considered desire for revenge 2. Rationale: the 'considered' desire runs contrary to the assertion of D losing his self-control so D lacks a vital element of the defense. -Prevent LOSC being used inappropriately by revenge killers. 3. If it applies, the 'considered revenge' exception renders a defense of LOSC void even if all the elements are fulfilled. [Requirement 1] Examine the requirement that D must have lost self-control. - ✔✔Definition: -Subjective requirement that D's conduct must have resulted from a lack of self-control. Does not matter whether a reasonable person in D's position would have lost self-control. -Scope: Both loss of physical and mental control is acceptable but mental is more likely. -Exact established definition is lacking: (1) Defined by Rafferty LJ (COA) in Jewell as "loss of the ability to act in accordance with considered judgement or loss of normal powers of reasoning" taken from S&H's Criminal law book. (CJ / NPoR) (2) However the Lord Chief Justice declined to endorse this approach in Gurpinar [2015]. (Importance of it being the LCJ) (3) Judge must however be able to identify some evidence of the loss of self-control (Gurpinar) Possible hurdles: (1) Time delay -Despite removing the 'sudden and temporary', a time delay between the provocation and the killing still innately implies that the trigger did not cause a los

[Show More]

Last updated: 2 years ago

Preview 1 out of 19 pages

Buy Now

Instant download