Loss of control: considered desire for revenge (Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s.54(4))
Nadia Khan's neighbour, Graham Pike, has harassed her for months. One evening he tells her, laughing, that he has poisoned her dog, which has just died. Nadia goes home and spends two hours thinking about what he has done. She then takes a hammer from her shed, waits behind his garden wall until he returns from the pub, and kills him with several blows. She tells the police: 'I wanted him to pay for what he did.' She is charged with murder and wishes to rely on the partial defence of loss of control.
Which of the following best describes whether the partial defence of loss of control is available to Nadia?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer D: It is not available, because she acted in a considered desire for revenge.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
Loss of control need not be sudden, but the defence is excluded where D acted in a considered desire for revenge (s.54(4) CJA 2009).
Loss of control: considered desire for revenge (Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s.54(4))
Section 54(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 reduces murder to manslaughter where D's acts resulted from a loss of self-control with a qualifying trigger and a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in D's circumstances, might have reacted in the same or a similar way. Under s.54(2) the loss of control need not be sudden. However, s.54(4) provides that the defence does not apply if, in doing the killing, D acted in a considered desire for revenge. Nadia spent two hours reflecting, armed herself, lay in wait and said she wanted Graham 'to pay'. That points to a considered desire for revenge rather than a loss of self-control, so the defence is excluded whatever the gravity of Graham's conduct. She remains liable for murder unless another defence applies.
Why A is wrong: Section 54(2) provides that it does not matter whether the loss of control was sudden; the reason the defence fails is revenge under s.54(4).
Why B is wrong: Even if a qualifying trigger existed, s.54(4) excludes the defence where D acted in a considered desire for revenge.
Why C is wrong: Once sufficient evidence raises the defence, the prosecution must disprove it beyond reasonable doubt (s.54(5)); the defendant has no legal burden.
Why E is wrong: A recognised medical condition is part of diminished responsibility, not loss of control.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Diminished responsibility: elements, burden and effect (Homicide Act 1957, s.2)
Which of the following best describes how the defence of diminished responsibility operates in Oliver's case?
Oblique intention and the virtual certainty direction (R v Woollin)
Which of the following is the correct direction the judge should have given on intention?
Transferred malice where the blow strikes an unintended victim
Which of the following best describes Ryan's liability for Leah's death?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.