Facts: This case is decided under the old law of provocation. The appellant poured petrol and caustic soda on to her sleeping husband and then set fire to him. He died six days later from his injuries. The couple had an arranged marriage and the husband had been violent and abusive throughout the marriage. He was also having an affair. On the night of the killing he had threatened to hit her with an iron and told her that he would beat her the next day if she did not provide him with money. At her trial she admitted killing her husband but raised the defence of provocation however, the jury convicted her of murder. She appealed.

Held: The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the grounds of provocation. Lord Taylor of Gosforth said there had to be a “sudden and temporary loss of self-control”. The longer the defendant waits between the provocation and the killing the harder it will be to rely on the defence: here, the defendant had thought about the attack for a few hours before actually doing so. However, the appeal was allowed on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

⇒ See the topic notes on loss of control here.

Facts: >Note: this case was decided under the old law of provocation. The defendant, aged 48, lived with his mother and became financially dependent on her. On 17th Feb 1993 the appellant called an ambulance as his mother had fallen down the stairs. She died. Medical evidence suggested that the mother died from a sustained attack rather than from the fall. The appellant was therefore charged with her murder. At his trial he denied any attack and maintained that his mother fell. During the trial, the prosecution continually put it to the defendant that his mother had mocked him and berated him for being inadequate and he then lost his control and attacked her and pushed her down the stairs. The defendant strongly denied all such allegations. Nevertheless the jury convicted him of murder. The defendant appealed.

Held: It was clear the defendant had lost self-control and killed his mother, but was held there was no provoking incident (old law) so could be no defence. The appeal was therefore dismissed and his conviction for murder was upheld.

⇒ See the topic notes on loss of control here.

Facts: Here there were three defendants with breaking down relationships (Clinton, Parker, and Evans). (1) Clinton’s wife left him saying she was having an affair, but his response was to beat her and send the photos to her lover. Clinton argued he was feeling depressed and had financial problems. (2) Parker stabbed his wife because she wanted to leave him. Parker argued he lost is because she had been planning it behind his back and realised he would lose his children too. (3) Evans had been married for 41 years, but his behaviour suddenly changed leading to his wife wanting to leave the marriage. Evans suggested his behaviour had changed due to the trauma of recently finding his neighbour dead. Evans killed her in response to her want to leave.

Held: The Court of Appeal said the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 is designed to prevent the misuse of sexual infidelity as an excuse to kill people. In other words, sexual infidelity (e.g. being cheated on) cannot be a qualifying trigger in loss of control cases. Nevertheless, even where the existence of sexual infidelity does not prevent reliance on the defence of loss of control where there exist other qualifying triggers. For example, if she assaults him as well that may be the qualifying trigger.

⇒ See the topic notes on loss of control here.

Facts: The defendant, Mark Dawes, went to his estranged wife’s (i.e. they no longer lived together) house and found her asleep on the sofa with Graham Pethard. He awoke him and started punching him in the face and hitting him with a bottle. According to the defendant, Pethard took the bottle off him and attacked him. The defendant then grabbed a knife from the kitchen and fatally stabbed him in the neck. At trial he raised the defence of self-defence which was not accepted by the jury. The judge held that the defence of loss of control could not be put to the jury under s.55(6)(a) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009) as he had incited the violence. He was convicted of murder and appealed contending the defence of loss of control should have been put to the jury.

Held: To rely on loss of control it must be shown that the defendant was in a situation of an extremely grave character and had been seriously wronged. Thus, the judge was correct in not putting the defence of loss of control to the Jury.

⇒ See the topic notes on loss of control here.

Facts: The appellant appealed against her conviction for murdering her son Thomas. Thomas had suffered serious head injuries when he had fallen out of an ambulance. He had undergone lifesaving surgery which removed part of his skull which resulted in severe head and facial disfigurement. He was in a vegetative state but doctors were hopeful that he would make a recovery. The appellant, however, was convinced that his vegetative state was permanent. She became obsessive and believed he was in pain and wanted to end his suffering. She injected him with a lethal dose of heroin with the intention to kill, which did kill her son. She appealed against her conviction.

Held: Her conviction was upheld: the lethal injection that killed her son was seen to be pre-meditated so could not raise the defence of provocation (under the old law) or, as it would be now, the defence of loss of control.

⇒ See the topic notes on loss of control here.