GDL Law Notes GDL Criminal Law Notes
A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through applications from top students and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short these are what we believe to be the strongest set of GDL notes available in the UK this year. This collection of GDL notes is fully updated for recent exams, also making them the most up-to-date GDL study materials ...
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL Criminal Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Murder
Mandatory life sentence pursuant to the Murder Act 1965 (end of death penalty)
2 special defences – arise only in relation to murder: loss of control and diminished responsibility
Loss of control
Consensus that the special defences to the offence of murder needed reform (judgements in Attorney General for Jersey v Holley)
Coroners and Justice Act 2009 – changes to the special defences
Defence of provocation abolished and replaced with new defence entitled ‘loss of control’
S54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009:
Where a person (D) kills or is party to the killing of another (V), D is not to be convicted of murder if –
D’s acts and omissions, in doing or being a arty to the killing resulted from D’s loss of self-control,
The loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, and
A person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restrain and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D – reaction of a normal person
NEW area of law – has only come before the court once - R v Clinton, Parker & Evans (2012)
Burden of proof rests with the prosecution – they need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that only one of the components is absent for the defence to fail (R v Clinton)
If successful then the conviction is reduced to manslaughter
Despite Clinton – much remains undefined and untested
Loss of self-control
Element is not defined in the act
Old common law largely (but not completely) irrelevant ( has replaced provocation) so fact based
But some case law helpful:
Following R v Richens (1993) – seems likely that although there won’t be a need for complete loss of control so that the defendant does not know who he was doing – he must have been unable to restrain himself – loss of temper not enough
The loss of control need not be sudden - shows how the old law of provocation developed
case of Ahulwalia – defence of provocation not lost just because of delay btw the provocative words and the killing – but up to jury to decide length of the delay
The Qualifying trigger
Clinton: new defence has ‘raised the bar’ : more difficult to raise than provocation was
‘Qualifying trigger’ defined in S55:
This section applies for the purposes of section 54
A loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger if subsection (3), (4). Or (5) applies
If D’s loss of self-control was attributable to D’s fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person
If D’s loss of self-control was attributable to a thing or things done or said (or both) which –
Constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and
Caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
If D’s loss of self-control was attributable to a combination of the matters in subsections (3) and (4)
In determining whether a loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger –
D’s fear of serious violence is to be disregarded to the extent that it was caused by a thing which D incited to be done or said for the purpose of providing an excuse to use violence
A sense of being seriously wronged by a thing done or said is not justifiable if D incited the thing to be said for the purpose of providing an excuse…
Fear of serious violence:
Link with self-defence - trigger to provide for situations where the defendant is justified in using force but where the force is unreasonable preventing self-defence – R v Martin (Anthony) – used excessive force on burglars so self-defence therefore not available. Old law on provocation not useful either given the degree of planning involved in his action – but new law might have helped
Things said or done which constitutes circumstances of an extremely grave nature and causes a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
No clear definition in the act But now have clear direction that both s 55 (4)(a) & (b) require objective evaluation (confirmed by Clinton)
Things said or done (or both)
Must be something actually said or done
R v Acott – if a person driving in slow-moving traffic caused by snow lost control wouldn’t be able to rely on defence (from old law)
Constitutes circumstances of an extremely grave nature
Difficult as act and explanatory notes are silent on the meaning of the phrase
We know it must be determined objectively
Thought that is the same as that required when evaluating the perception of the threat within the defence of duress
Causes defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
Whether sense of being seriously wronged is justifiable is an objective question – confirmed in Clinton
Narrows the law: Under the old law almost anything could constitute provocation: R v Doughty (a baby crying); R v Davies (watching an adulterous meeting)
Law Commission – a parent coming home to find his child was being raped = a situation where the defence would now be available
Old cases which provide examples of when the trigger could now arise:
R v Ahluwalia – D had been victim of domestic violence for years – on the night in question her husband had argued with her and threatened to beat her the following morning – after he fell asleep she poured petrol over him and set him alight, causing burns from which he later died
R v Thornton D was a long-term victim of domestic abuse – one evening after argument, went to kitchen, sharpened her knife and then stabbed her husband
R v Humphreys – D had been abused, sexually and mentally by partner, on the night of the killing was taunted and threatened with rape – lost self-control and stabbed husband
R v Baille : D learned that his son had been threatened by a drug dealer – drove to the dealer’s house with shotgun and razor – slashed his throat and chased him, shooting him twice
In contrast: cases like Davies and Doughty now unlikely to satisfy requirements
Limitations on use of this defence
Cannot be used in act of “considered revenge” – S 54 (4)
Mirrors old law: CA in R v Imbrams and Gregory – 7 days...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Criminal Law Notes.
A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through applications from top students and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short these are what we believe to be the strongest set of GDL notes available in the UK this year. This collection of GDL notes is fully updated for recent exams, also making them the most up-to-date GDL study materials ...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started