Loss of Control Evaluation.

Page 1

The old law and recent reform.

There used to be a special, partial defence called provocation, but it had many problems.

Therefore, it as abolished and replaced by loss of control in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

Problems with old law.

Defence was very unclear.

Male-centred defence.

Not a true reflection of human behaviour.

No longer reflected Parliament's original intentions in the 1957 Act.

Comparison of provocation, and loss of control, and remaining issues.

Wider than old defence of provocation.

FEAR OF SERIOUS VIOLENCE.

TIGHTER than the old defence.

New defence is more restrictive. Sexual infidelity is excluded as a trigger.

A compromise between Parliament's wishes and the Law Commission's commendations to abolish the defence completely.

Requirement that the defendant must lose their self control.

Recognises people react differently. (Dawes)

Acknowledges ow burn of women's reactions.

Defence is more available to women.

Ahluwalia would now be able to claim the defence.

The Law Commission proposed completely removing the requirement that the defendant must lose their self control suddenly.

The Government ignored this proposal and the defendant must still prove that they lost their self control.

Sexual Infidelity as an excluded trigger.

No longer allowed as a qualifying trigger.

However, the old defence of provocation was largely created for these every situations.

But losing control for this reason does satisfy all stages of the LOC test.

But infidelity is too common in society now.

Other showed clear distaste or this new rule when they interpreted the Act to allow the defence to till succeed in certain cases.