The second in a two part series looking at voluntary manslaughter. This document looks at the partial defence of Loss of Self Control for offences of Murder. Includes a brief outline of the issues with the old defence of provocation, consideration of the elements of the new replacement, and critici...
Loss of Self Control (LOSC) – Voluntary Manslaughter
What is voluntary manslaughter?
Voluntary manslaughter is a partial defence to murder. It occurs when both the
actus reus and mens rea of murder are present and satisfied, but the offence is
reduced from that of murder to manslaughter because there has been either a loss
of self-control (LOSC), or for reasons of diminished responsibility.
Both LOSC and diminished responsibility are a partial defence because it does not
lead to full acquittal. Instead the defendant is charged with the lesser offence of
voluntary manslaughter.
Exam tip – a good way to phrase this process to show good understanding of it is to
describe that ‘the defendant would not be found guilty of murder by reason of
LOSC/diminished responsibility’.
Loss of Self Control
The history of LOSC
LOSC was first known in its earlier form as the defence of provocation. At the based
on the partial defence was the idea that killing in hot blood was underserving of the
title of murder… But why? This is perhaps the biggest issue with the defence overall.
Why should killing someone out of anger be treated any differently from killing
someone without?
Originally developed from cases where men reacted to protect their honour, but
slowly expanded to include all different types of reactions. Case of Hayward
suggested it was not really an excuse, but more of an attempt to justify the killing.
In the 19th and early 20th century the test for proving provocation adopted a
reasonable man test. The idea behind this, as confirmed in the case of Welsh, was
that if an individually reacted in the same as the reasonably-minded man to commit
the offence, then the defence was available to him. However it is arguable that such
a test is out of place here as the reasonable man would never commit murder in the
first place.
Problems with the old defence of provocation
1) The defence had become too wide and was beginning to include too many
circumstances. A good example of this is the case of Doughty, where a screaming
baby was deemed to be enough for the defence to be invoked.
2) The old defence of provocation was rooted in the idea of a sudden loss of control.
Whilst at first this may seem beneficial, battered wives cases such as Ahluwalia
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller CoxJ005. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $4.56. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
