Section 54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009: Loss of Control

Loss of Control

Section 54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Where the defendant kills or is party to a killing the defendant will not be convicted of murder if:

• The defendant’s actions result from the defendant’s loss of control.

• The loss of control resulted from a qualifying trigger.

• A person of the same age, sex and with a reasonable degree of tolerance and self-restraint in the circumstances of the defendant might have reacted in the same way.

Resulting from a loss of control 

This does not have to be a sudden loss of control, the defence now covers slow burn situations.

Ibrams/Gregory [1981]: Ibrams current girlfriend’s ex-boyfriend had visited their flat on the 7^th, the police were called, but did nothing. On the 10^th, the two defendants made a plan to attack the ex-boyfriend. On the 12^th, they killed him. Held, this appeared to be premeditated and there was no loss of control.

Thornton No1 [1992]: The defendant was a battered wife. She told a friend that she was going to kill her husband. He was laid on the settee and taunted her, she picked up a knife, went into the living room and stabbed him. Held, this was not a sudden loss of control as she premeditated this attack by telling her friend that she was going to kill him.

Ahluwalia [1992]: The defendant was a battered wife for many years. Before the husband went to bed he threatened her with violence the next day. She waited for him to go to sleep, poured petrol over him whilst he was asleep and set him alight. He died. Held, this was not loss of control as she intended to kill him as she waited till he was asleep.

These cases were decided under the old law of provocation but would probably be decided the same under the new law of loss of control.

Resulting from a qualifying trigger

Section 55 defines qualifying triggers as the defendant fears serious violence from the victim against the defendant or another identified individual. Things said or done that are constituted as extremely grave in character that caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being wronged. 

Section 55(6) states that sexual infidelity should not be regarded as a qualifying trigger.

Pearson Brothers [1992]: One of the brothers had left home but had returned to look after his younger brother. The father provoked the younger brother on this occasion, the older brother killed the father with a sledgehammer. Held, the provocation aimed at the younger brother could allow the older brother to lose his self-control.

Doughty [1986]: A baby crying made the defendant lose his self-control and kill the baby. Under provocation this was accepted as a trigger but under loss of control this would not 

be accepted.

Dryden [1995]: The defendant had a phobia of planning offices. It was a recognised mental problem. He killed the planning officer who visited his house. This would not be accepted as a trigger under loss of control.

Morgan Smith [2001]: The defendant was suffering with depression and he killed his friend because he believed that his friend had taken his tools. Under the law of provocation this was accepted. However, under the law of loss of control this would not be a qualifying trigger.

Mohammed [2005]: A devout Muslim came home to find his daughter in bed with a man. He killed his daughter. To the father this would have been viewed as extremely greave but it is not a justifiable sense of being wronged.

R v Clinton, Parker and Evans [2012]: Held, the disclosure of affairs was not a qualifying trigger as it constituted sexual infidelity, it should be disregarded, the other things said or done did not constitute as extremely grave in character.

Same Sex and Age

Section 54(c) a person of the same age, sex and with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint in the circumstances of the defendant might have reacted in the same way.

Morhall [1996]: Glue sniffing was held to be a characteristic of the defendant, this distinguished the defendant from a normal person. If a taunt was aimed at that characteristic then the circumstance can be put into the objective factor.

Gregson [2006]: The defendant was unemployed and depressed, he suffered from epilepsy. The depression and epilepsy lost him his job, he was taunted about his unemployment and reacted, resulting in the death of the victim. Held, because it was aimed at his unemployment and then epilepsy and depression caused the unemployment then it could be taken into account.

Hill [2008]: The defendant went back to a flat with his friend whom he knew to be gay. He woke up to find his friend unzipping him and strangled him. It was accepted by the court that because he had suffered sexual abuse as a child, that circumstance could be placed into the objective factor to determine whether an ordinary person would have reacted in the same way.

Clarke [1990]: The defendant head-butted the victim, he then strangled her and then plugged her into the mains. His argument was that he lost his self-control and he should not be responsible as a murderer. The courts said it was not possible to separate what killed her and therefore all circumstances must be viewed. Held, a reasonable man provoked would not have reacted in the same way.

Van Dongen [2005]: The defendant repeatedly kicked his girlfriend whilst she was curled on the floor. Held, repeated kicking was over and above what a reasonable person would do within the circumstances.