In October 2009, the partial defence of provocation was replaced by that of loss of control. The reforms sought to address a long-standing criticism that the English law of homicide had failed adequately to accommodate the contexts in which women [ would] kill an abusive male partner, whilst allowing men to kill their female partner out of jealousy and rage. This essay will seek to examine whether the new defence has improved the old defence.
It was perceived that women who killed their abusive partners were ill served by the defence of provocation because of the requirement of loss of control needing be a sudden and a temporary loss of control. This requirement “restrict[ed] the availability of the defence to individual who were subject to …show more content…
In the nineteenth century, the killing of a female as a result of sexual infidelity was seen as a defence to provocation. Lord Hoffman suggested that the reason why the killing were justified was because female infidelity was seen as the “highest invasion of property.” The new defence sought to address the gender imbalance and section 55(6)(c) excluded sexual infidelity as a qualifying trigger. Although the act excludes sexual infidelity as a qualifying trigger this did not mean that there would be a blanket exclusion on all sexual infidelity cases. In R v Clinton the court held that sexual infidelity could be regarded as qualifying trigger when things that were done or said amounted to something of a grave character and the defendant has justifiable sense of being wronged. Furthermore, it can be argued that the new defence has not shifted the gender imbalance for male bias to female bias. If a woman, who suffers from domestic abuse kills her partner then she can on rely on the defence of loss of control if you acted in order to prevent an attach which was anticipated but not imminent or if she overreact to something perceives to be an imminent threat. It can thereby be argued that the defence looks to whether the individual had no other …show more content…
it could be argued that the new defense was designed to “address the gendered context within which a large number of homicides [were] committed.” The new defense also failed to explain what loss of control is and some argue that the change in substantive law was only a purely “technical” change. In the oxford dictionary, loss of control can refer to something that is slipping out of your control. It can thereby be argued that individuals who suffer from abuse and commit murder do so as they have no alternative and are unable to do anything. If loss of control was to be defined a something that was slipping out of the defendant hand then it would be no different to that of self-defense, where by the individual has no control over the actions, which is also a sudden and imminent reaction. The same could also apply to sexual infidelity. For example, a partner who has been in a long-term marriage with their partners can lose control of their emotions when the partners have an affair. This would be no different to an elderly couple, whereby lifetime marriage has made them attached to one another. One of them dying can make the individual lose control and become emotionally detached. Their emotional detached may be gradual form of depression whereby they lose control of their emotions. Likewise, if one of the partners is to have an affair then this can lead to a
It was perceived that women who killed their abusive partners were ill served by the defence of provocation because of the requirement of loss of control needing be a sudden and a temporary loss of control. This requirement “restrict[ed] the availability of the defence to individual who were subject to …show more content…
In the nineteenth century, the killing of a female as a result of sexual infidelity was seen as a defence to provocation. Lord Hoffman suggested that the reason why the killing were justified was because female infidelity was seen as the “highest invasion of property.” The new defence sought to address the gender imbalance and section 55(6)(c) excluded sexual infidelity as a qualifying trigger. Although the act excludes sexual infidelity as a qualifying trigger this did not mean that there would be a blanket exclusion on all sexual infidelity cases. In R v Clinton the court held that sexual infidelity could be regarded as qualifying trigger when things that were done or said amounted to something of a grave character and the defendant has justifiable sense of being wronged. Furthermore, it can be argued that the new defence has not shifted the gender imbalance for male bias to female bias. If a woman, who suffers from domestic abuse kills her partner then she can on rely on the defence of loss of control if you acted in order to prevent an attach which was anticipated but not imminent or if she overreact to something perceives to be an imminent threat. It can thereby be argued that the defence looks to whether the individual had no other …show more content…
it could be argued that the new defense was designed to “address the gendered context within which a large number of homicides [were] committed.” The new defense also failed to explain what loss of control is and some argue that the change in substantive law was only a purely “technical” change. In the oxford dictionary, loss of control can refer to something that is slipping out of your control. It can thereby be argued that individuals who suffer from abuse and commit murder do so as they have no alternative and are unable to do anything. If loss of control was to be defined a something that was slipping out of the defendant hand then it would be no different to that of self-defense, where by the individual has no control over the actions, which is also a sudden and imminent reaction. The same could also apply to sexual infidelity. For example, a partner who has been in a long-term marriage with their partners can lose control of their emotions when the partners have an affair. This would be no different to an elderly couple, whereby lifetime marriage has made them attached to one another. One of them dying can make the individual lose control and become emotionally detached. Their emotional detached may be gradual form of depression whereby they lose control of their emotions. Likewise, if one of the partners is to have an affair then this can lead to a