header-logo header-logo

29 November 2018 / Alec Samuels
Issue: 7819 / Categories: Features , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Homicide: loss of control

Alec Samuels explores a defence that can reduce murder to manslaughter

  • Covers a range of approaches to the partial defence of loss of control.

Charged with murder, the defendant D pleads loss of control, manslaughter: a partial defence introduced in 2010 by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, ss 54-55. The basic criterion is normality, a person of D’s sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D. How would the juror have expected the average man in the street to have reacted? That is the objective approach. The ordinary average phlegmatic Englishman might get upset and angry but he does not normally ‘lose his cool’ and resort to killing. Therefore, the defendant raising loss of control is often something of an ‘odd ball’, a bit eccentric. However, the law does recognise the relevance of the circumstances of D. D may meet the requirements of the qualifying trigger. He might have feared extreme violence from the victim

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll