Murder and voluntary manslaughter

Murder requires proof of unlawful killing with intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (R v Moloney). This carries mandatory life imprisonment, tempered by two partial defences reducing the verdict to voluntary manslaughter: loss of control (CJA 2009, ss 54-56) and diminished responsibility (Homicide Act 1957, s 2, as amended). Loss of control requires: (1) actual loss of self-control; (2) a qualifying trigger (fear of serious violence or circumstances of extremely grave character causing justifiable sense of being seriously wronged); (3) that a person of D's sex/age with normal tolerance might have reacted similarly. Diminished responsibility requires: (1) abnormality of mental functioning from recognised medical condition; (2) substantial impairment of ability to understand conduct/form rational judgment/exercise self-control; (3) providing explanation for the killing. The GBH rule—that intention to cause serious injury suffices for murder—remains controversial but binding.

R v Moloney [1985] AC 905: Established modern murder mens rea requires intention (direct or oblique) to kill or cause GBH; foresight is evidence from which intention may be inferred, not intention itself. Critical for understanding that the GBH rule means D need not intend death if D intends serious injury.

R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2: Sexual infidelity cannot constitute a qualifying trigger alone but may form part of contextual background where other conduct meets s 55(4) threshold. Shows courts' attempt to navigate poorly drafted statutory exclusion while avoiding artificial jury directions.

R v Dawes [2013] EWCA Crim 322: Loss of control need not be sudden but delay undermines credibility; considered desire for revenge excludes defence; intoxication relevant to subjective loss but ignored for objective standard. Essential guidance on how statutory elements interact.

R v Dowds [2012] EWCA Crim 281: Voluntary acute intoxication is not a recognised medical condition; only chronic alcohol-use disorder qualifies. Preserves common law rule against intoxication founding diminished responsibility.

R v Golds [2016] UKSC 61: "Substantially impaired" means important/weighty, not merely more than trivial; jury may reject unanimous psychiatric evidence. Confirms jury's normative role in determining whether impairment warrants partial defence.

For murder, establish causation of death then prove intention to kill/cause GBH (applying Woollin if death/GBH not D's purpose). If proven, consider partial defences.

For loss of control: (1) Was there evidence of actual loss of self-control? Time delay relevant but not fatal. (2) Identify qualifying trigger—fear of serious violence or extremely grave circumstances causing justifiable grievance. Sexual infidelity excluded as trigger but permitted as context (Clinton). (3) Would person of D's sex/age with normal tolerance have reacted similarly? D's circumstances relevant to gravity, not standard of control.

For diminished responsibility: (1) Identify recognised medical condition (ICD/DSM classification). (2) Did it substantially impair specified capacity? "Substantial" means important (Golds). (3) Does abnormality explain the killing? Defence bears burden on balance of probabilities.

Neither defence applies to attempted murder. Revenge excludes loss of control; voluntary intoxication excludes diminished responsibility unless underlying disorder exists.

Forgetting the GBH rule—intention to cause serious injury suffices for murder even without intention to kill. Misapplying Woollin—only relevant where death/GBH not D's purpose; if D aims to injure/kill, that's direct intention. Treating sexual infidelity as absolute bar—it's excluded as trigger but permitted as context per Clinton. Confusing burdens—diminished responsibility requires defence to prove on balance of probabilities; loss of control requires prosecution to disprove beyond reasonable doubt once raised. Assuming acute intoxication supports diminished responsibility—Dowds excludes this absent underlying disorder. Applying partial defences to attempted murder—they don't apply. Missing "substantial" means important/weighty (Golds), not merely non-trivial.