Discuss 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. [50]
Discuss 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. [50]
Loss of control is a partial defence to a charge of murder. If it is successful, D will be found guilty of manslaughter. This allows the judge discretion in sentencing. Loss of control replaced the former defence of provocation. This law is set out in s54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The old defence of provocation was abolished by s56 CJA 2009. Under the new law, if D wants the defence to be successful, they need to have lost self control, there must be a qualifying trigger and a person of the same sex and age should react in the same way as D in the same circumstances.
The first matter to be proved is that D had lost self control when doing the acts which caused the death. The loss of control does not need to be sudden (Duffy). This was a rule of the former defence of provocation. It led to some defendants not being able to use the defence as their loss of control was not sudden (Ahluwalia).
There has to be qualifying trigger for the loss of control to come within the defence. Section 55 of the Act sets out the qualifying triggers which are permitted. These are where the loss of control attributes to D 's fear of serious violence (Pearson), 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 (Doughty).
Although only age and sex can be considered in deciding the level of self-control expected from D, other circumstances of D can be taken into consideration in deciding whether a 'normal ' person might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D in those circumstances. The normal person test however, needs to expect a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint (Camplin).
The defence of diminished responsibility is set out in s2
Loss of control is a partial defence to a charge of murder. If it is successful, D will be found guilty of manslaughter. This allows the judge discretion in sentencing. Loss of control replaced the former defence of provocation. This law is set out in s54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The old defence of provocation was abolished by s56 CJA 2009. Under the new law, if D wants the defence to be successful, they need to have lost self control, there must be a qualifying trigger and a person of the same sex and age should react in the same way as D in the same circumstances.
The first matter to be proved is that D had lost self control when doing the acts which caused the death. The loss of control does not need to be sudden (Duffy). This was a rule of the former defence of provocation. It led to some defendants not being able to use the defence as their loss of control was not sudden (Ahluwalia).
There has to be qualifying trigger for the loss of control to come within the defence. Section 55 of the Act sets out the qualifying triggers which are permitted. These are where the loss of control attributes to D 's fear of serious violence (Pearson), 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 (Doughty).
Although only age and sex can be considered in deciding the level of self-control expected from D, other circumstances of D can be taken into consideration in deciding whether a 'normal ' person might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D in those circumstances. The normal person test however, needs to expect a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint (Camplin).
The defence of diminished responsibility is set out in s2