• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Voluntary Manslaghter - Notes and Evaluation.

Extracts from this document...


Voluntary Manslaughter Voluntary Manslaughter is the term given to situations in which the defendant would be guilty of murder (i.e. he had the intention to kill or cause GBH) but due to a mitigating factor he is only guilty of manslaughter. These mitigating factors are when the killing occurs when the defendant is under diminished responsibility, provocation or a suicide pact. All of these defences are set out in the Homicide Act 1957. The defences are only available to murder and are only partial defences, which means that the defendant is not completely acquitted; the charge is reduced to manslaughter. Provocation - S3 Homicide Act 1957 "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 be determined by the jury." The defence consists of two elements; 1.) Did the defendant lose his self control? 2.) Would a reasonable person have lost his self-control? 1.) Did the defendant lose his self control? This is a subjective test in which the jury must be satisfied that the defendant lost his self control as a result of the provocation. In Duffy (1949) it was said that there must be a "sudden and temporary loss of self control, rendering the accused so subject to passion as to make him not the master of his mind". ...read more.


2.) It must arise from a specific cause The abnormality must be caused by one of the matters set out in the brackets within S2 Homicide Act 1957. These are: 1.) A condition of arrested or retarded development - this includes an abnormality arising from a failure of the mind to develop beyond a certain point, e.g. Downs Syndrome. 2.) Inherent causes - this means a cause which is within the defendant like depression, pathological illness, trauma or paranoia as opposed to external factors such as alcohol or drugs. 3.) Induced by physical disease or injury - this is where some external cause has lead to a mental abnormality, e.g. being hit over the head by falling brickwork which causes a personality disorder or long term alcoholism or drug taking which leads to personality changes. Intoxication itself is never a cause for pleading diminished responsibility (Tandy). However many killings occur as a result of a combination of intoxication and mental abnormality (Sanderson). The defendants abnormality of the mind does not have to be the only reason for their act - the question is did he have an abnormality of mind when he was sober. The mental abnormality must exist independently of the intoxication and exist at the time of the killing. 3.) It must substantially impair defendants mental responsibilities This is for the jury to decide whether the difficulty the defendant has with controlling his conduct has been substantially greater than the difficulty a reasonable man would have experienced in the same circumstances or not. ...read more.


There are also problems with the wording of the act. The law commission stated that the words are unclear which means that in different cases different doctors have classed the same conditions in different ways. Some doctors will testify that reactive depressions and dissociated states of mind are inherent causes, while other doctors disagree. One main problem with diminished responsibility involves the jury. "Mental responsibility" and "abnormality of the mind" are difficult concepts for a jury to understand, and medical evidence is often complex and contradictory. lt can also be said that psychiatrists are usurping the role of the jury in that they are being asked to give an opinion on what many believe to be a moral question, when the psychiatrists should only state whether the abnormality actually exists. It is also difficult for juries when dealing with a case where the defendant has an abnormality of the mind and is intoxicated at the same time. It is hard for them to separate the two issues (Dietschmann). The jury are asked the difficult question "Would the defendant have still had an abnormality had he been sober?" rather then "Would he have killed had he been sober?" and then they have to decide whether the abnormality of the mind amounts to diminished responsibility. Finally, it can be said that the burden of proof should be on the prosecution to disprove the defence once the defendant has raised evidence of it, which is the case in most other defences. These problems were dealt with in the Butler Committee's proposal and the draft Criminal Code, but the government has not enacted either so these problems remain in the law. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Criminal Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

3 star(s)

A fine and moderately comprehensive essay, now outdated.

3.5 stars.

Marked by teacher Edward Smith 05/07/2013

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Criminal Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    English law does not normally impose liability for an omission or failure to act ...

    4 star(s)

    However if the defendant is put at risk by performing his/her duty it should not be deemed reasonable that they would continue to carry out their duty of care due to the nature of their occupation. The Third category of omission is Duty under a Statute; sometimes a statute imposes

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Is the current law on the non-fatal offences against the person satisfactory?

    4 star(s)

    The same case clarified that there is no difference between "cause" and "inflict", ending speculation that "inflict" had a narrower meaning than "cause". It was previously unclear whether the transmission of disease, particularly HIV/AIDS was an offence, with the Government believing that it was not covered under the Act, but

  1. Human Trafficking In Australia. This essay will be covering different aspect of human ...

    Children are also a massive part of slavery and trafficking. There have been laws designed and based on children to ensure their rights and to protect them from labour such as debt bondages, forced labour, child soldiering and to keep them from any work that may cause them harm.

  2. intoxication as a defence

    If the decision of taking the drug in the first place is considered reckless, then intoxication cannot be used as a defence. To conclude, intoxication can be effective as a defence but there are several issues. A main one being that it is difficult to know which offences the courts will class as specific intent and basic intent crimes.

  1. The justifiable use of force in self-defence depends entirely upon the circumstances in which ...

    It is not necessary for there to be a developing attack, the defendant can apprehend an attack. In Beckford (1988), a policeman's family was threatened by a local drugs gang. He pummeled the dealer with a chair leg and there was no death.

  2. role of judges in civil cases

    If a jury is involved, then the judge sums up the case and waits for the jury's verdict; from this he will pass sentence. If the judge decides that the claimant is entitled to damages, he will have to decide the amount.

  1. Describe the role of the House of Commons, The House of Lords and The ...

    So overall the main role of the House of Commons is to propose, draft and scrutinise the points of the bill. Next the bill is passed to the House of Lords where they will hold a first and second reading, basically outlining and discussing the bill- much like the House of Commons did.

  2. Explain what is meant by the term causation in criminal law and assess how ...

    Even though the gunshot wound had almost healed the victim died due to negligent treatment. The negligent treatment must be so independent of D?s acts, and in itself so potent in causing death, that they regard the contribution made by his acts as insignificant.? The courts will use whichever direction will avoid breaking the chain of causation.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work