VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER & THE PARTIAL DEFENCES
2 Types of Manslaughter:
1. Voluntary Manslaughter: ‘unlawful killing where D has killed intentionally but has a partial defense that
mitigates the gravity of the offence.’
- D satisfies both the AR and the MR of murder, but has a partial defence which reduces liability
from murder to manslaughter
- The partial defenses are:
1. Suicide Pact
2. Diminished Responsibility
3. Loss of Control
- If accepted they reduce murder to manslaughter.
- Max penalty on conviction = life imprisonment but the judge is given discretion.
- You cannot be charged with VM – it is a defence to a murder charge only.
2. Involuntary Manslaughter: ‘an unlawful killing where D does not have intention to kill or cause GBH but
some other, less blameworthy, fault is proved.’
- It consists of three types:
1. Reckless manslaughter
2. Constructive or unlawful act manslaughter
3. Gross negligence manslaughter
Partial Defences
1. Suicide Pact - D kills V in Pursuance of an agreement that they will both die together - Homicide
Act 1957, s4
2. Diminished Responsibility - D’s recognised medical condition led to an abnormality of metal
functioning and caused her to kill - Homicide act 1957, s2
3. Loss of Control - D kills while out of control owing to fear of serious violence or a justifiable
sense of being seriously wronged - Coroners and Justice act 2009, s54
During the course of a murder trial, if evidence arises that the D might have lost control or any of the 3
above, the judge must look to the jury and reconsider:
If he doesn’t there will be ground for appeal
If they do consider, the person will be convicted of manslaughter not murder
The Old Law: Provocation (LOC)
Historically, the criminal justice system has condoned killings when done in a state of anger aroused
by provocation
The initial Vol Mans defence was provocation which is now LOC
It was common law created by judges – it meant that the person who got the benefit of that defence
would escape execution
2 tests to decide whether a person would get the defence:
- Subjective test: concerned with whether the D had actually lost control because he had been
provoked (provocation) – if that condition was satisfied, the jury had to consider
- Objective test: the issue of how a reasonable person would have responded to the provocation
and if a reasonable person would have lost control, would they have acted the way D has in that
case
Doughty 1986: the crying of a baby was accepted as a justification for the D losing control and
killing the baby – classed as aggravation
- Even if there is evidence of serious provocation, that in itself won’t prevail a defence
- It has to be coupled with the fact that the provocation caused him to lose control
Lord Devlin in the case of Duffy 1949 defined LOC – ‘sudden and temporary loss of control rendering
the accused so subject to passion as to make him or her not master of their mind at the time’
- The anger that builds up from the serious provocation must be something that is destabilising to
the point that he can claim he lacked the MR for murder
Richens 1993: Court said that all that was required is that the D was so angry that he was unable to
restrain himself
The emphasis on ‘sudden’ that there must be an instant response – the courts applied this strictly –
there couldn’t be too much of a time lapse
- Slow burn syndrome: domestic abuse cases – ‘battered woman’s syndrome’
2 Types of Manslaughter:
1. Voluntary Manslaughter: ‘unlawful killing where D has killed intentionally but has a partial defense that
mitigates the gravity of the offence.’
- D satisfies both the AR and the MR of murder, but has a partial defence which reduces liability
from murder to manslaughter
- The partial defenses are:
1. Suicide Pact
2. Diminished Responsibility
3. Loss of Control
- If accepted they reduce murder to manslaughter.
- Max penalty on conviction = life imprisonment but the judge is given discretion.
- You cannot be charged with VM – it is a defence to a murder charge only.
2. Involuntary Manslaughter: ‘an unlawful killing where D does not have intention to kill or cause GBH but
some other, less blameworthy, fault is proved.’
- It consists of three types:
1. Reckless manslaughter
2. Constructive or unlawful act manslaughter
3. Gross negligence manslaughter
Partial Defences
1. Suicide Pact - D kills V in Pursuance of an agreement that they will both die together - Homicide
Act 1957, s4
2. Diminished Responsibility - D’s recognised medical condition led to an abnormality of metal
functioning and caused her to kill - Homicide act 1957, s2
3. Loss of Control - D kills while out of control owing to fear of serious violence or a justifiable
sense of being seriously wronged - Coroners and Justice act 2009, s54
During the course of a murder trial, if evidence arises that the D might have lost control or any of the 3
above, the judge must look to the jury and reconsider:
If he doesn’t there will be ground for appeal
If they do consider, the person will be convicted of manslaughter not murder
The Old Law: Provocation (LOC)
Historically, the criminal justice system has condoned killings when done in a state of anger aroused
by provocation
The initial Vol Mans defence was provocation which is now LOC
It was common law created by judges – it meant that the person who got the benefit of that defence
would escape execution
2 tests to decide whether a person would get the defence:
- Subjective test: concerned with whether the D had actually lost control because he had been
provoked (provocation) – if that condition was satisfied, the jury had to consider
- Objective test: the issue of how a reasonable person would have responded to the provocation
and if a reasonable person would have lost control, would they have acted the way D has in that
case
Doughty 1986: the crying of a baby was accepted as a justification for the D losing control and
killing the baby – classed as aggravation
- Even if there is evidence of serious provocation, that in itself won’t prevail a defence
- It has to be coupled with the fact that the provocation caused him to lose control
Lord Devlin in the case of Duffy 1949 defined LOC – ‘sudden and temporary loss of control rendering
the accused so subject to passion as to make him or her not master of their mind at the time’
- The anger that builds up from the serious provocation must be something that is destabilising to
the point that he can claim he lacked the MR for murder
Richens 1993: Court said that all that was required is that the D was so angry that he was unable to
restrain himself
The emphasis on ‘sudden’ that there must be an instant response – the courts applied this strictly –
there couldn’t be too much of a time lapse
- Slow burn syndrome: domestic abuse cases – ‘battered woman’s syndrome’
