Fatal offences: murder and its mens rea, the partial defences of loss of control and diminished responsibility reducing murder to voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter by unlawful act and by gross negligence.

What this dot point is asking

This dot point covers the fatal offences: murder, voluntary manslaughter (murder reduced by a partial defence), and involuntary manslaughter (an unlawful killing without the mens rea for murder). You need to state the elements of murder, explain the partial defences of loss of control and diminished responsibility under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and explain unlawful act and gross negligence manslaughter. WJEC tests application to scenarios, advising on the defendant's liability.

The answer

Murder

Voluntary manslaughter: loss of control

Voluntary manslaughter: diminished responsibility

Diminished responsibility (section 52, Coroners and Justice Act 2009) is a partial defence requiring an abnormality of mental functioning that: (1) arose from a recognised medical condition; (2) substantially impaired the defendant's ability to understand the nature of their conduct, form a rational judgement, or exercise self-control; and (3) provides an explanation for the killing. The burden is on the defence, on the balance of probabilities.

Involuntary manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter is an unlawful killing without the mens rea for murder, in two forms:

• Unlawful act (constructive) manslaughter: an unlawful act (a crime, not a mere omission, R v Lowe) that is dangerous on the objective test (a sober and reasonable person would foresee the risk of some harm, R v Church), which causes death (R v Mitchell), and the defendant has the mens rea for the unlawful act (no need to foresee death, R v Newbury and Jones).
• Gross negligence manslaughter: a duty of care (R v Adomako), a breach of that duty, a risk of death, and a breach so gross as to be criminal (the jury decides), which causes death. Adomako, a negligent anaesthetist, is the leading case.

Examples in context

The partial defences turn what would be murder into voluntary manslaughter. Take a defendant who kills after a sustained campaign of serious violence against them: if they lost self-control, the violence is a qualifying trigger (fear of serious violence), and a normal person of their age and sex might have reacted similarly, then loss of control reduces the offence, even though the killing was intentional. Diminished responsibility works differently, through the defendant's mind: a defendant suffering from a recognised condition such as depression or a personality disorder that substantially impaired their ability to exercise self-control may have murder reduced under section 52. Where there is no intention to kill or cause GBH at all, the killing is involuntary manslaughter: a single unlawful and dangerous punch that causes a fatal fall is classic unlawful act manslaughter (R v Mitchell-type facts), while a professional whose grossly negligent breach of duty causes death, as in Adomako, is gross negligence manslaughter.

Try this

Q1. State the mens rea for murder. [2 marks]

• Cue. Intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm (R v Vickers).

Q2. Name the three elements of loss of control. [3 marks]

• Cue. A loss of self-control, a qualifying trigger, and that a normal person of the defendant's age and sex might have reacted similarly.

Q3. Advise whether the defendant is liable for murder or manslaughter on the facts. [20 marks]

• What the marker wants. Murder established (actus reus and mens rea), the partial defences (loss of control, diminished responsibility) considered, and, where there is no intention, the two forms of involuntary manslaughter applied, with a conclusion.