“Sexual infidelity alone cannot trigger loss of control defence but forms admissible contextual evidence.”
Clinton killed his wife after discovering her affair and receiving taunting text messages. He had been suffering from depression and the marriage was deteriorating. Clinton claimed the defence of loss of control under sections 54-55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
Whether sexual infidelity could constitute a qualifying trigger for the loss of control defence under s.55(6)(c) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which states that sexual infidelity is to be disregarded.
The Court of Appeal held that while sexual infidelity alone cannot constitute a qualifying trigger, it can be considered as part of the circumstances and context where there are other qualifying triggers present.
This case provides crucial guidance on interpreting the loss of control defence and the treatment of sexual infidelity evidence. It demonstrates the courts' contextual approach to statutory interpretation in homicide cases, essential for understanding modern partial defences to murder.
You're reading the free summary of R v Clinton. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.