Describe the Extent to Which Recent Reforms to Murder in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 Are a Change for the Better but Have Not Necessarily Satisfied Those Who Campaigned for Change.
Provocation was previously controlled under S2 of the homicide act 1957, the act stated where a person kills or is party to a killing of another, he shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from such abnormality of mind as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing. The new defence S54-56 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 replaced defence of Provocation S3 Homicide Act 1957; it came into force October 2010.
There are three stages to proving loss of self control. Stage one is the defendant’s actions (in doing or being a party to a killing) must be down to the result of a loss of self control. There is no need for loss of self control to be ‘sudden’ however in court a jury can still take into account the delay between the incident and the killing, this is now available to a defendant if they acted in a ‘considered desire for revenge.’ A case related to this is Duffy 1949, the defendant killed her husband after mistreatment, she removed their child from the home and when her husband was asleep she killed him with a hatchet and hammer, she was found to be guilty. Previously any cooling off period might have counted against the defendant. This was problematic for women who were in violent relationships; they were unable to plead the defence due to the perceived element of pre-meditation. In Ahluwalia a woman had been in an arranged marriage, her husband was very violent towards her over a period of 10 years. She poured white spirit over her husband and set it alight causing his death. The courts accepted the possibility of a slow burn reaction; however it is very difficult to prove. Court of appeal concluded diminished responsibility.
Stage two is that loss of control must have a qualifying trigger; s53 (3) says the individual must have fear of serious violence to either the defendant or another identified person. There are cases where a defendant has lost self-control because of his
There are three stages to proving loss of self control. Stage one is the defendant’s actions (in doing or being a party to a killing) must be down to the result of a loss of self control. There is no need for loss of self control to be ‘sudden’ however in court a jury can still take into account the delay between the incident and the killing, this is now available to a defendant if they acted in a ‘considered desire for revenge.’ A case related to this is Duffy 1949, the defendant killed her husband after mistreatment, she removed their child from the home and when her husband was asleep she killed him with a hatchet and hammer, she was found to be guilty. Previously any cooling off period might have counted against the defendant. This was problematic for women who were in violent relationships; they were unable to plead the defence due to the perceived element of pre-meditation. In Ahluwalia a woman had been in an arranged marriage, her husband was very violent towards her over a period of 10 years. She poured white spirit over her husband and set it alight causing his death. The courts accepted the possibility of a slow burn reaction; however it is very difficult to prove. Court of appeal concluded diminished responsibility.
Stage two is that loss of control must have a qualifying trigger; s53 (3) says the individual must have fear of serious violence to either the defendant or another identified person. There are cases where a defendant has lost self-control because of his