Murder (the actus reus and mens rea) and the two special and partial defences that reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter: loss of control and diminished responsibility under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

What this dot point is asking

OCR Component 1 Section B requires you to know the offence of murder, the most serious fatal offence, and the two special and partial defences that, if successful, reduce a murder conviction to voluntary manslaughter: loss of control and diminished responsibility, both found in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The skill is to apply the elements and the statutory tests to a scenario for AO2.

The answer

Murder

Because intention to cause really serious harm is enough, a defendant who intends only serious injury but causes death is guilty of murder. Where intention cannot be shown directly, the jury may find oblique intention under Woollin (death or serious harm a virtual certainty, appreciated by the defendant).

Loss of control

The first partial defence, under sections 54 to 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, has three components, all of which must be satisfied:

1. Loss of self-control. The defendant must have lost self-control; unlike the old provocation defence, this need not be sudden, which helps defendants (often in domestic abuse cases) who react after a delay. A considered desire for revenge is excluded.
2. A qualifying trigger. The loss of control must be attributable to a fear of serious violence from the victim, or to things said or done that were extremely grave and gave the defendant a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged, or both. Sexual infidelity is excluded as a qualifying trigger on its own.
3. The normal-person test. A person of the defendant's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the defendant's circumstances, might have reacted in the same or a similar way.

Diminished responsibility

The second partial defence, under section 52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (which amended the Homicide Act 1957), requires the defence to prove, on the balance of probabilities, an abnormality of mental functioning that:

• arose from a recognised medical condition (for example depression, schizophrenia or battered-woman syndrome; voluntary intoxication alone does not qualify);
• substantially impaired the defendant's ability to do one or more of: understand the nature of their conduct, form a rational judgement, or exercise self-control; and
• provides an explanation for the killing (it caused, or was a significant contributory factor in causing, the defendant to act).

Examples in context

A strong answer keeps the two defences separate, applies each statutory limb to the facts, and concludes on each.

Try this

Q1. Explain the three components of the defence of loss of control under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. [12 marks]

• What the marker wants. Precise AO1: loss of self-control (need not be sudden); a qualifying trigger (fear of serious violence, or grave words or conduct giving a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged, sexual infidelity excluded); and the normal-person test (age and sex, ordinary tolerance and self-restraint).

Q2. Following years of domestic abuse, Maria kills her partner while he sleeps. She has been diagnosed with battered-woman syndrome. Discuss the partial defences available to Maria. [20 marks]

• Cue. An AO2 application: loss of control (the trigger of fear of serious violence and the non-sudden loss of control, though the sleeping victim raises a revenge question) and diminished responsibility (battered-woman syndrome as a recognised medical condition substantially impairing a relevant ability), concluding on each.