Here is a sample response applying the law to the scenario provided: James' liability for Louise's death: Actus Reus of Murder: James' actions of hitting Louise twice on the head with a vase directly caused her death. The blows fractured her skull and caused fatal injuries. Mens Rea for Murder: For murder, the prosecution must prove James intended to kill Louise or cause her really serious harm. From the facts given, it seems James snapped and hit Louise impulsively in anger rather than with clear intent to kill. This means the mens rea for murder may not be satisfied. Partial Defence of Loss of Control: James could argue he lost self-control due to provocation by

1. Which of these was unsuccessful in arguing
provocation under the old law?
i.e. were found liable for murder or manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility, rather
than manslaughter.
R v Davies R v Pearson R v Ahluwalia AG for Jersey v
Holley
R v Ibrams & R v Betambeau R v James, Karimi R v Camplin
Gregory

2. And now a little reminder of theory…
Before we look at the current law, we need to consider why we
have developed this partial defence, and what it should aim to do.
Then we can work it if it‟s doing what it should!
Why do we allow people who lose their self-control to
have this partial defence?
Why might it not be suitable for it to be a complete
defence?
Is it an excuse or a justification? Professor Norrie
argues that it is currently an excuse, but should work
more as ‘imperfect justification’.

3. Issues with the old law
„Sudden and temporary‟ loss of control
Role of the jury
Meaning of the reasonable man
Range of behaviour that could be „provoking‟
Whilst we look at the new law, have these in the back of your mind:
Does the new law adequately address the issues raised?

4. New law
Coroners and Justice Act 2009 s.54-5

5. Some basics:
Role of the Judge in loss of control pleas
in the opinion of the trial judge, a
jury, properly directed, could
reasonably conclude that the
defence might apply.
s.54
Look at these previous cases...
Do you think they would meet the new threshold?

6. What’s the phrase?
of
Loss of self control

7. Element One:
Loss of Self Control
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), it does not matter whether or not
the loss of control was sudden.
Issues with the section: R v Duffy 1949
“Sudden and
 The longer the gap, the more likely the temporary loss of
judge will withdraw it. control”
 Allows for a ‘cooling off period’ per
Ahluwalia.
Still must be a loss of control
 Law Commission didn’t want to keep these R v Cocker 1989
words.
 Allows a whole category history of
provoking actions or words to be taken into
account.

8. Subsection (1) does not apply if, in doing or being a party to the killing, D acted in a
considered desire for revenge.
Why might these words cause problems?
How might this have affected these older cases?
R v Mohammed R v Ibrams & R v Pearson
Gregory

9. Element Two:
Qualifying Trigger s.55
Who can be
threatened? What about
Who can issue other types of
the provocation? abuse?
First Trigger:
D's loss of self-control was attributable
to D's fear of serious violence from V
against D or another identified person
‘Serious’ Judged subjectively
violence
So, D can even plead it where:
 Uses excessive force
 Makes a mistake

10. Extremely grave character
Second Trigger:
This subsection applies if D's loss of
self-control was attributable to a thing
or things done or said (or both)
which—
(a)constituted circumstances of an
extremely grave character, and
(b)caused D to have a justifiable sense
of being seriously wronged.
Justifiable sense of being seriously
wronged.

11. Other limitations on the Qualified Trigger?
If D incites the violence from Sexual infidelity isn‟t accepted as
V, as an excuse, he can‟t use it. an excuse.
D picks up the phone to hear
R v Johnson 1989 his wife conducting a phone sex
conversation with her lover. He
puts down the phone and goes
to her, strangling her.
Could D use
loss of D and V are arguing. V has been
abusive to V and punches her.
control as a He also says that she is
useless, and that he has been
defence in having an affair with her sister
for the last year. D stabs him,
these killing him.
situations?
D comes home to find her
husband sexually abusing their
young child. She stabs him to
But... What about Edwards? Could death.
he use it?
Are there other situations which should also
have been included.

12. Developing your understanding...
The Test: As the old law is still good, we need to
look at what that old law actually says!
Were the actions of V enough
Read the edited case report of Camplin
to prompt a person of D‟s sex Was it enough that D in those
and age with a normal degree at the back circumstances lost their answer
of your booklet and
of tolerance and self restraint the following questions in as much detail
control?
to lose their self control? as you can!
Why include age? 1. What were the facts of the case?
2. What was the provocation alleged?
3. What characteristics did D want
included in the „reasonable man‟?
 What about gender? 4. What issue of public policy limited the
defence?
5. What does Devlin say that the
„reasonable man‟ includes?
6. Do you agree with this? Is it clear?
7. Should these be temporary or
permanent characteristics?

13. Is Camplin the right way to go?
Camplin isn’t the last word in this... Indeed it AG for Jersey v
Holley
wasn’t even the earliest, but it is the one which
has lived the longest.
Challenge one:
Can you match up all the cards
He ain’t
bedding no-
Challenge Two: one. Never
Can you put them in order? mind his age
Challenge Three:
No
Under the extract from Camplin answer the characteristics
following question: are relevant to
D’s self control
“the approach of the courts to the elements
affecting D’s self control is too limiting.”
Aim to use at least two cases in your response. Note: These aren’t right!

14. Can you be better than Miss Hart?
Correct the paragraph below, to show your understanding of last lesson
Loss of of Control a partialdefence to murder. It comes from the Judges and
Loss Control is is a full defence to murder. It comes from the Coroners and
Criminal Justice Act 2009 ss.54-5. It was designed to replace the old defence of
provocation under s.3 of the Homicide Act 1957. The old Act had was heavily
taunting under s.3 of the Homcide Act 1957. The old Act had was heavily
criticised as itit allowed a very narrow rangesituations to be put put before the
criticised as allowed a very wide range of of situations to be before the jury.
In jury. In addition, the Duffy had decided that loss that loss of control meant
addition, the case of case of Stuffy had decided of control meant sudden and
sudden. This meant that many people could not not use it including battered wives
temporary. This meant that many people could use it including deep fried wives as
as they often waited until their victim posed less threat (e.g. asleep).
they often waited until their victim posed less threat (e.g. asleep).
To use the new Act, D must have a qualifying trigger, as defined in s.54 of the
s.55
Act. The trigger is either a fear of serious violence from V against an identifiable
Act. The trigger is either a fear of serious anger from V against anyone, or
something or something which or said which constitutes circumstances of a grave
person, done or said done constitutes circumstances of a deadly character and
character and an justifiable sense of beingsense of being seriously wronged. This
leaves D with leaves D with an justifiable seriously upset. This latter trigger is
latter trigger is objectively, and includesexcludes sexual infidelity.
judged judged objectively, and sexual infidelity.

15. Developing your understanding...
The Answers! As the old law is still good, we need
to look at what that old law actually
says!
Read the edited case report at the
back of your booklet and answer the
following questions in as much detail
as you can!
1. What were the facts of the case?
2. What was the provocation alleged?
3. What characteristics did D want included in
the „reasonable man‟?
4. What issue of public policy limited the
defence?
5. What does Devlin say that the „reasonable
man‟ includes?
6. Do you agree with this? Is it clear?
7. Should these be temporary or permanent
characteristics?
Extension: can you extend your commentary
on the characteristics by referring
to at least one controversial case?

16. The Test:
and
Were the actions of V enough
to prompt a person of D‟s sex Was it enough that D in those
and age with a normal degree circumstances lost their
of tolerance and self restraint control?
to lose their self control?
Why include age? What word has changed
from the old law?
Circumstances... Was
characteristics
 What about gender?
Why might that be more
flexible than the old
approach?

17. Sexual Infidelity...
A new circumstance?
R v Clinton
Sexual infidelity is not enough for a qualifying
trigger alone.
However, it is enough under the third element of
„circumstances‟
(and it might be enough for DR!).
D walks in on V, her V says that she is having
husband, having sex with an affair and leaving D
her sister. He starts for another man. She
saying that it is all her arranges to come around
fault as she worthless V says that she is to collect her belongings.
and she begins arguing leaving D for D meets her at the door,
back, and snaps, killing another man. D invites her in and then
him. snaps and kills stabs her to death.
her.

18. Thinking:
Is this evidence of sexual infidelity?

19. Other options?
Following
Morgan Smith:
Extreme
A merged plea?
emotional
disturbance
D hears about his ex-
girlfriend‟s new relationship
The Law
and becomes enraged. He
breaks into her flat and waits Commission
for her to come home and 2006 & 2004
kills her.
They had broken up a number
of years earlier, and he was
with someone else.

20. Plenary
Back to the start:
Has the law addressed these
adequately?
„Sudden and temporary‟ loss of control
Role of the jury
Meaning of the reasonable man
Range of behaviour that could be „provoking‟

21. Can you sort it all?
Can you use
your
understandin
g to
complete the
dominoes?
15 minutes
NO MORE!

22. Got it?

24. Plenary:
It’s Post-it time!
“Changing the law hasn‟t really solved the problem”
A Discuss whether or not you agree with this statement
and why.
B
Explain the importance of the decision of CLINTON to
the law on loss of control.
C Explain what is meant by a „qualifying trigger‟ under
s.55
Recount two changes to the law under the 2009 Act
D
Define the partial defence of loss of control and
E identify where it comes from

25. Exam skills:
Applying the law AO2
Now you know what the law is, can you apply it
to a situation?
Louise and James have been together for a number of years. James is quite immature
and depressed. On the day in question, Louise tells James she want him out of the house,
as she has been sleeping with his brother, and they want to move in together. James
cries and Louise mocks him, telling him he is not a man and slaps him a number of times.
James snaps and picks up a vase, hitting her over the head twice,
James calls the paramedics, who arrive and whilst transporting her to the ambulance,
drop her twice, fracturing her skull further. Louise dies
Discuss James‟ liability for the death of Louise.

26. Logical application!

27. Now it’s over to you
Working in pairs, you are going to complete your own analysis of
a problem, creating a chain of causation and applying the law.
To answer them properly, you will have to recall some of the law
which we have looked at earlier in the term, and remember how
we approached James and Louise... OCD
Murder: Actus Reus
Murder: Mens Rea
Loss of Control
Qualifying trigger?
Enough to provoke the person with the age and sex
of D in the circumstances
Causation?
Finally: would they be successful or not ?

28. It’s time to be creative!
1. Write up your response to the Louisa and James problem question.
2. Revise for a DRAG test on murder and voluntary manslaughter on 18th
October 2012
Due Thursday 11th October 2012