Loss of Control Defence
Ever wondered why some killers get convicted of manslaughter instead of murder? The loss of control defence under sections 54 & 55 of the Coroner's and Justice Act 2009 can reduce a murder charge if three specific conditions are met.
First, the defendant must prove their actions resulted from genuinely losing control. Unlike old law, this loss doesn't need to be sudden. However, in R v Jewell (2014), a defendant who shot someone with a shotgun couldn't prove loss of control despite claiming his "head was fucked up" - the court found insufficient evidence.
Second, there must be a qualifying trigger. This means either fearing serious violence from the victim, or facing circumstances so extremely grave that any reasonable person would feel seriously wronged. R v Ward (2012) succeeded when a defendant killed someone who'd attacked his brother, but R v Hatter (2013) failed because a relationship breakdown wasn't considered grave enough.
Key Point: The circumstances must be objectively serious - your personal feelings aren't enough if a reasonable person wouldn't consider the situation extreme.
Finally, the reasonable person test asks whether someone of the defendant's age and sex, with normal tolerance, might have reacted similarly. In R v Christian (2018), the defence failed because the defendant's reaction was so extreme that no normal person would have responded that way.