Loss Of Self-Control Case
Case Database: Loss of self-control
Case
Facts
Legal point
Clinton (2012)
D suffered from depression. Was on medication. Killed his wife. Found out she was having affair. V taunted D about committing suicide. V&D argued.
Convicted of murder. Appealed on basis of loss of self-control. Should have been left to the jury. CA quashed the conviction and agreed.
Dawes and Others (2013)
D found his wife and V asleep on the sofa, legs entwined. Was altercation. D stabbed V, killing him.
Convicted of murder. Appealed on basis that judge should have left the decision of loss of self-control to jury. CA upheld conviction. If D is normally self-restraining then (except for extreme circumstances) D can’t use it as a defence.
Asmelash (2013)
CA …show more content…
Convicted of murder. Conviction upheld. Qualifying trigger under s55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 – must constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character and D must have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. Neither occurred.
Ahluwalia (1992) (old law)
D had been abused over many years by husband. Husband threatened her. D poured petrol over V and set him alight. V died six days later.
Convicted of murder. Appealed. CA didn’t let her appeal on provocation. D’s reaction had been sudden rather than immediate. The longer the delay, the more likely the act was deliberate. CA did allow her appeal on diminished responsibility.
Inrams and Gregory (1981) (old law)
Both defendants made a plan to attack the person who threatened them. Killed him two days later.
Convicted of murder and their convictions upheld as there was no sudden loss of self-control.
Daughty (1988) (old law)
D killed his 17-day-old son, raising the defence that the baby's persistent crying and recklessness constituted provocation.
The trial judge erred in refusing to leave the defence of provocation to the
Case
Facts
Legal point
Clinton (2012)
D suffered from depression. Was on medication. Killed his wife. Found out she was having affair. V taunted D about committing suicide. V&D argued.
Convicted of murder. Appealed on basis of loss of self-control. Should have been left to the jury. CA quashed the conviction and agreed.
Dawes and Others (2013)
D found his wife and V asleep on the sofa, legs entwined. Was altercation. D stabbed V, killing him.
Convicted of murder. Appealed on basis that judge should have left the decision of loss of self-control to jury. CA upheld conviction. If D is normally self-restraining then (except for extreme circumstances) D can’t use it as a defence.
Asmelash (2013)
CA …show more content…
Convicted of murder. Conviction upheld. Qualifying trigger under s55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 – must constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character and D must have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. Neither occurred.
Ahluwalia (1992) (old law)
D had been abused over many years by husband. Husband threatened her. D poured petrol over V and set him alight. V died six days later.
Convicted of murder. Appealed. CA didn’t let her appeal on provocation. D’s reaction had been sudden rather than immediate. The longer the delay, the more likely the act was deliberate. CA did allow her appeal on diminished responsibility.
Inrams and Gregory (1981) (old law)
Both defendants made a plan to attack the person who threatened them. Killed him two days later.
Convicted of murder and their convictions upheld as there was no sudden loss of self-control.
Daughty (1988) (old law)
D killed his 17-day-old son, raising the defence that the baby's persistent crying and recklessness constituted provocation.
The trial judge erred in refusing to leave the defence of provocation to the