Essay
Loss of Control Evaluation
- Course
- Institution
An in-depth evaluation of the law on loss of control. The plan provides a balanced argument and is of an A* standard.
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
eleanortrend
Content preview
IntroductionCAJA 2009 5. 54 (1) states that where the defendant kills or is a party to the killing of
another, the defendant shall not be convicted of murder if:
1. The defendant's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted
from his loss of self-control (s. 54 (1)(a));
2. The loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger (5.54 (1)(b)); and
3. A person of the defendant's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-
restraint and in the circumstances of the defendant, might have reacted in the same
or in a similar way to D (s. 54 (1)(c)).
Loss of Control
Need not be Sudden
There is an improvement with the first requirement, because the loss of self-control
no longer needs to be sudden.
In R v Ahluwalia (1992) D could not rely on the defence of provocation because there
was a time lapse where she waited for her husband to fall asleep before setting his
feet on fire. This illustrated the problems with the old defence of provocation,
because it did not cater for women who suffered a 'slow burn' reaction rather than a
sudden snap. CAJA 2009 recognises 'slow burn' reactions of battered wives.
The fact that the loss of control does not need to be sudden will help battered
women, but if there is a large cooling off period, this will look like revenge and is an
excluded matter. 5 days was too much of a time lapse in R v Ibrams and Gregory
(1981) but the D was allowed the defence where there was a gap but no considered
revenge in R v Bailie (1995)).
Qualifying Trigger
Fear
The second requirement is that there is a "qualifying trigger". The first qualifying
trigger is where the defendant fears serious violence from the victim against the
defendant or another identified person; s.55(3).
This particular qualifying trigger is an improvement on the law because it will assist
women who fear violence at the hands of an abusive partner and subsequently kill,
like the case of R v Ahluwalia (1992).
Anger
A further qualifying trigger is things done or said or both together. However, they
must be of an extremely grave character, and cause the defendant to have a
justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
This is an improvement on the old law of provocation which did not have the grave
and wronged restrictions. It is wrong that a crying baby could found the defence of
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller eleanortrend. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $5.16. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
75759 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now