Evidence, Proof, Argument AND Criminal Law - Speech or Presentation Example

Issue of Voluntary Manslaughter – Loss of Self Control R V Duncan Moore Issue of Voluntary Manslaughter – Loss of Self Control My Lady, I am Alisha Hussein, and in this matter on behalf of the prosecution, I shall be dealing with the issue of loss of control which states that: A person may be convicted of manslaughter and not murder if he/she exhibits loss of self-control that had a qualifying trigger, and an individual of the same age and sex in the situation might have taken the same or similar action given they have self-control and tolerance1.

What is loss of control? In the case of R v Richens [1993] 4 All ER 877; loss of control was established to be complete loss of awareness where a person is not in control of his actions. In the case, your honor, the defendant confronted the victim for raping his girlfriend. The defendant stabbed the victim and he died. He was convicted of murder, but later appealed on the defense of loss of control. The defendant’s appeal was dismissed on the grounds that he was aware of what he was doing. It was established in the ruling that loss of temper cannot be confused with loss of control.

Loss of control is defence only where the mind is not in control of the body. The defendant in the case before us today was aware of what was going on around him during the attackIf it pleases your Honour, I would go through the qualifying triggers under section 55 (3) (4) of the Act in relation to the case at hand, to demonstrate why loss of control should be withdrawn. The defendant did not express any serious fear towards the victim either by words or actions. The victim was merely acting in defense of his friend, knowing a little more than what he saw after being woken up.

Instead of fighting back, was it possible for the defendant to surrender? The defendant, in the case before my ladyship today, used force that was more than reasonable in his situation. In the case of R v Martin (Anthony) [2002] WRL1; [2002] CAR 27 Crim LR 136; the defendant shot a burglar (the victim) and argued that it was out of self defence. The defence was not available because the level of force used was more than reasonable. The defendant was convicted of murder. In his witness, Detective Sergeant Philip Dennis said that the defendant was examined and it was found that the damage was not too severe and he was fit to be detained and interviewed.

This shows that the victim attack did not threaten the life of the defendant and it was unreasonable to stab him. In the tape recording of the interview, the defendant expressed no remorse that the victim was dead. Was the defendant in this case your honour seriously wronged by the victim’s words and actions leading him to act out of character? I believe not. The defendant’s behaviour provoked the victim to attack him, therefore the qualifying trigger of seriously wronged is not available in this case (Sections 55(6) (a) and (b)2.

In R v Johnson [1989] 1 WLR 740: allow me my lady to give a brief summary of the facts of this case. The defendant argued he was acting on self-defence since he believed he was about to be glassed. He was still charged with murder because he provoked the victim by threatening his lady friend. In conclusion, my ladyship, I ask: how would a boy of fifteen years in the same scenario as the defendant who has ordinary levels of self-restraint and tolerance react?BibliographyCoroner and Justice Act 2009 (commencement no.

4, transitional and saving provisions). Order 2010, paragraph 14.