Loss of self control

Loss of self control

Under the S.54-56 of the Coroners and Justice 2009, the loss of self control replaces the defence of provocation.

The first requirement for this defence would be that the loss of self control does not need to be sudden but must be in near future (R v Ibrams and Gregory)and the defendant must not have any considered desire of revenge.

The second requirement is the loss of self control must arise in one of these qualifying triggers:

- Fear trigger is where the defendant fears violence to an identified person as in R v Pearson.

- Anger trigger is things said or done that are of extremely grave character that gave the defendant a justifiable sense of being wronged as in R v Clinton.

R v Clinton states that sexual infidelity is not a qualifying trigger and will be disregarded unless there are other triggers involve.

The last requirement is to prove that a reasonable person of the defendant's age and sex, in the same circumstances as the defendant would have reacted in the same way;

- The defendant's age and sex is taken in to account in order to determine the level of self control expected of a person as on R v Camplin.

- The circumstances of the defendant is considered as this can trigger t the defendant to lose self control more than in a normal person as in R v Aluwhalia, R v Morhall, R v Gregson and R v Hill.

- Even if it can be proven that a reasonable person of the defendant's age, sex and in the same circumstances, the jury can still decide that a reasonable person wouldn't have reacted the same way as in R v Van Dongen.