Issue of Voluntary Manslaughter – Loss of Self Control (Essay Sample)

Issue of Voluntary Manslaughter – Loss of Self Control
R V Duncan Moore
Name
Course
Date
My Lady, I am Alisha Hussein, and in this matter on behalf of the prosecution I shall be dealing with the issue of loss of control which states that: A person may be convicted of manslaughter and not murder if he/she exhibits loss of self-control that had a qualifying trigger, and an individual of the same age and sex if the situation might have taken the same or similar action given they have self control and tolerance.
If it pleases your Honour, I would go through the qualifying triggers under section 55 (3) (4) of the Act in relation to the case at hand, to demonstrate why loss of control should be withdrawn. The defendant did not express any serious fear towards the victim either by words or actions. The victim was merely acting in defense of his friend, knowing a little more than what he saw after being woken up. Instead of fighting back, was it possible for the defendant to surrender? The defence of fear of violence is not vailable in this case since the defendant’s behaviour provoked the victims to attack him (Sections 55(6) (a) and (b).
According to studies conducted a requirement that self-control loss is never sudden (s. 54(2)). This is an aspect that clearly brings a change, which is stated in the law of provocation, where the requirements of provocation law are temporary and sudden. As per the specification of the case, the boy acted as a means of a sudden effect an aspect that leads us to suspecting that the provocation law was gone against. This is also an aspect that leads us to stating that manslaughter was evident.
An act of provocation may also arise if the person in the case lost self-control as a means of attributed things or something that may have led to them acting the way they did. This is an aspect that could have been led to by the other person who caused the commotion. The law also states that a person should be able to clearly explain that a normal person who has a normal level of self-restraint and tolerance could have also behaved in the same way. If it pleases you your honour, the self-control loss should not be disapproved in this case. Based on the fact that the defendant woke up immediately and did what he did, this is an aspect that goes against the requirement that self-control loss is never sudden (s. 54(2)).
In R v Johnson [1989] 1 WLR 740: allow me my lady to give a brief summary of the facts of this case. The defendant argued he was acting on self-defence since he believed he was about to be glassed. He was still charged with murder because he provoked the victi...