oluntary Manslaughter:
Voluntary manslaughter is the conviction given if a defendant who would otherwise have been found guilty of murder, successfully pleads one of two specific defences.
These two defences are provocation, and diminished responsibility, and are both laid out in the Homicide Act 1957.
The defence of provocation was a common law defence before the Homicide Act was created and brought into power. It is currently detailed in section three of this act, and is a two-part test.
Firstly, the subjective test: was the defendant provoked to lose his self-control?
In this case provocation covers a huge variety of things both said and done. It need not be directed at the defendant himself, but at those close to him, or around him. …show more content…
However, provocation has many issues, such as favouring people who snap immediately after an event. It is seen to unfairly penalise women, especially women in abusive relationships who cannot physically best their partner in a fight and who often are provoked by a final "last straw" (Thornton) into killing. In cases such as these the defence of diminished responsibility is often preferred and frequently more successful.
Diminished responsibility is set out in section two (1) of the Homicide Act 1957, and is a three-part test. In this defence the burden of proof is on the defendant, where normally such things rest with the prosecution.
Firstly the defendant must establish that he was suffering an abnormality of the mind. This covers many medical conditions from epilepsy, to depression, various psychiatric disorders, and post-natal depression. Even pre-menstrual tension has been successfully pleaded - …show more content…
As is sexual psychopathy - Byrne. Battered wife syndrome (Ahluwalia) can also be used in a case of diminished responsibility.
Thirdly, it must be proven that this abnormality substantially impaired the defendant's responsibility for his actions. In Byrne the defendant was a sexual psychopath who could not control his desires and this was enough for a case of diminished responsibility, even though he was still given a life sentence.
The mental abnormality must be a substantial and more than minimal cause - Gittens. If the defendant was under the influence of drugs or of alcohol at the time of the offence as well as suffering an abnormality, the jury must decide whether or not the mental abnormality alone is enough to impair responsibility - Dietschmann, Gittens.
If a defendant can satisfy all three requires laid out in S2(1) then he is likely to be able to successfully plead a defence of diminished responsibility and reduce his crime from murder to voluntary manslaughter, which does not carry the same mandatory life sentence as a murder conviction
Voluntary manslaughter is the conviction given if a defendant who would otherwise have been found guilty of murder, successfully pleads one of two specific defences.
These two defences are provocation, and diminished responsibility, and are both laid out in the Homicide Act 1957.
The defence of provocation was a common law defence before the Homicide Act was created and brought into power. It is currently detailed in section three of this act, and is a two-part test.
Firstly, the subjective test: was the defendant provoked to lose his self-control?
In this case provocation covers a huge variety of things both said and done. It need not be directed at the defendant himself, but at those close to him, or around him. …show more content…
However, provocation has many issues, such as favouring people who snap immediately after an event. It is seen to unfairly penalise women, especially women in abusive relationships who cannot physically best their partner in a fight and who often are provoked by a final "last straw" (Thornton) into killing. In cases such as these the defence of diminished responsibility is often preferred and frequently more successful.
Diminished responsibility is set out in section two (1) of the Homicide Act 1957, and is a three-part test. In this defence the burden of proof is on the defendant, where normally such things rest with the prosecution.
Firstly the defendant must establish that he was suffering an abnormality of the mind. This covers many medical conditions from epilepsy, to depression, various psychiatric disorders, and post-natal depression. Even pre-menstrual tension has been successfully pleaded - …show more content…
As is sexual psychopathy - Byrne. Battered wife syndrome (Ahluwalia) can also be used in a case of diminished responsibility.
Thirdly, it must be proven that this abnormality substantially impaired the defendant's responsibility for his actions. In Byrne the defendant was a sexual psychopath who could not control his desires and this was enough for a case of diminished responsibility, even though he was still given a life sentence.
The mental abnormality must be a substantial and more than minimal cause - Gittens. If the defendant was under the influence of drugs or of alcohol at the time of the offence as well as suffering an abnormality, the jury must decide whether or not the mental abnormality alone is enough to impair responsibility - Dietschmann, Gittens.
If a defendant can satisfy all three requires laid out in S2(1) then he is likely to be able to successfully plead a defence of diminished responsibility and reduce his crime from murder to voluntary manslaughter, which does not carry the same mandatory life sentence as a murder conviction