Year 13 Voluntary Manslaughter

1
Year 13- Voluntary Manslaughter

• PROVOCATION, DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY AND
  SUICIDE PACT

2
General Introduction

• A verdict of voluntary manslaughter is unique.
• It is not a charge in itself but rather a
  special defence available only on a charge of
  murder.
• It is a partial defence in that the defendant is
  guilty of a lesser offence based on exceptional
  circumstances.
• The defences of Diminished Responsibility and
  Provocation do not involve a denial of mens rea
  for murder. Indeed that whole point is that the
  mens rea was present due to particular
  circumstances. If it were not for these
  circumstances the defendant would not normally
  have killed.
• This allows the judge to exercise discretion in
  choosing the appropriate sentence depending on
  the circumstances of the case.

3
Fools summary of Vol Manslaughter
4
Provocation

• Is found in the Homicide Act 1957, S.3
• Where on a charge of murder there is evidence on
  which the jury can find that the person charged
  was provoked (whether by things done or by things
  said or by both together) to lose his
  self-control, the question whether the
  provocation was enough to make a reasonable man
  do as he did shall be left to the jury and in
  determining that question the jury shall take
  into account everything both done and said
  according to the effect it would have on a
  reasonable man.

5
Provocation

• It was formally a common law defence which was
  applicable only to very limited circumstances.
• Three issues must be considered in order for the
  defence to succeed
• Is there sufficient evidence of provocation
  (which the judge must decide)
• Did the defendant loose his self-control (a
  subjective question)
• Would the reasonable person have lost his self
  control in the same circumstances? (an objective
  test)

6
What can amount to a provocation?

• Need not be something wrong or illegal, can be
  things said or done
• R v Doughty
• Provocation may come from 3rd parties or be
  directed at 3rd parties
• R v Davies R v Pearson

7
The subjective question- did the defendant loose
their self-control?

• R v Duffy- there must be a sudden and temporary
  loss of self-control, rendering the accused so
  subject to passion as to make him or her for the
  moment not the master or his mind
• Approved in R v Ibrams and Gregory circumstances
  which induce a desire for revenge are
  inconsistent with provocation, since the
  conscious formulation of a desire for reveng
  means that a person has had time to think

8
Battered Wives and Provocation

• Evidence of provocation is not confined to the
  last word/act. The cumulative effect of years of
  abuse may be taken into account
• In domestic violence cases the defence often
  fails. Women tend not to have a sudden and
  temporary loss of control. Slow burn affect
• R v Thornton R v Ahluwahlia