Essay question
"The partial defences to murder in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 represent a principled response to the problems of the old common law." Discuss.
---
Model answer
The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 abolished the common-law defence of provocation and rewrote diminished responsibility with the ambition of modernising homicide law in line with psychiatric science and gender equality. Whether the reforms constitute a "principled response" depends on one's view of the underlying problems and the coherence of the statutory solutions. This essay argues that while the 2009 Act addressed certain evident deficiencies—particularly the "sudden" requirement and archaic psychiatric language—the new framework is marked by internal tensions, interpretive difficulty, and unresolved policy conflicts. The reforms are more accurately characterised as pragmatic compromise than principled reconstruction.
The problems of the old law
The common-law defence of provocation, as articulated in R v Duffy [1949] 1 All ER 932, required a "sudden and temporary loss of self-control" caused by provocative conduct. This formulation was criticised on several grounds. First, the insistence on suddenness disadvantaged defendants—disproportionately women—who killed after enduring prolonged abuse. A battered spouse who, after years of violence, kills during a momentary opportunity does not experience a "sudden" loss of control in the classical sense; her response is the culmination of cumulative fear and anger. Academic commentators, including Susan Edwards and Carolyn Hoyle, demonstrated that the suddenness requirement encoded a male template of reactive violence and marginalised female experiences.
Second, the "reasonable man" test was doctrinally unstable. Following DPP v Camplin [1978] AC 705, characteristics relevant to the gravity of the provocation were attributed to the reasonable person, but the threshold of self-control was that of the ordinary person. R v Smith (Morgan) [2001] 1 AC 146 appeared to permit D's mental abnormalities to reduce the standard of self-control, but Attorney-General for Jersey v Holley [2005] 2 AC 580 disapproved Smith. The resulting confusion undermined consistency and the rule of law.
Third, provocation was frequently invoked in cases of sexual jealousy, enabling (predominantly male) defendants to rely on a partner's infidelity as exculpatory. Feminist scholars argued that this permitted the law to condone patriarchal violence.
Diminished responsibility under the original Homicide Act 1957, s 2, suffered from antiquated terminology—"abnormality of mind"—and vague causative language ("inherent causes or induced by disease or injury"). Its reliance on contested psychiatric evidence and the indeterminate "substantially impaired" threshold led to inconsistent verdicts.
The 2009 reforms: objectives and structure
The Coroners and Justice Act 2009, ss 52 and 54–56, sought to remedy these deficiencies by:
- Abolishing the suddenness requirement for loss of control (s 54(2)).
- Introducing objective normative filters ("extremely grave character," "justifiable sense of being seriously wronged") to narrow the defence and prevent unmeritorious claims.
- Excluding reliance on sexual infidelity as a qualifying trigger (s 55(6)(c)).
- Modernising diminished responsibility to require a "recognised medical condition" and specifying impaired capacities (understanding, rational judgment, self-control).
On paper, these changes address the identified problems. The removal of "sudden" accommodates slow-burn cases; the sexual-infidelity exclusion signals that possessiveness is not a legitimate grievance; the recognised-medical-condition requirement aligns the law with psychiatric nosology.
Loss of control: progress and problems
The flexibility introduced by abandoning suddenness is significant. In principle, a defendant who kills after cumulative abuse can now succeed where she would have failed under Duffy. However, s 54(2) provides that the longer the delay, the less likely the jury will believe there was a loss of control. This is sensible as a matter of evidence but reintroduces through the back door much of the temporal rigidity that the reform ostensibly removed. Moreover, s 54(4) excludes the defence where D acted in a "considered desire for revenge." R v Dawes [2013] EWCA Crim 322 clarified that revenge and loss of control are inconsistent, but in cases of prolonged abuse, the line between righteous anger and considered revenge is hard to draw. A defendant who plans the optimal moment to kill an abuser may be acting on accumulated rage rather than cool vengefulness, yet the statute treats planning as disqualifying.
The qualifying-trigger provisions raise further difficulties. The "fear of serious violence" trigger (s 55(3)) is relatively straightforward, though s 55(6)(a) excludes cases where D incited the violence as an excuse. The "anger" trigger (s 55(4)) requires conduct of "an extremely grave character" causing a "justifiable sense of being seriously wronged." These are high thresholds. R v Zebedee [2012] EWCA Crim 1428 illustrates judicial willingness to withdraw the defence where the trigger falls short. An elderly carer's reaction to his father's incontinence was held insufficiently grave as a matter of law. While this may be correct on the facts, it also shows that judges, not juries, are gatekeeping the defence—a shift from the provocation regime, where judges rarely withdrew the issue.
The sexual-infidelity exclusion (s 55(6)(c)) exemplifies political symbolism trumping doctrinal coherence. The provision was a late amendment, and its drafting is poor. R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2 held that infidelity cannot be a qualifying trigger per se but may be considered as part of the context. This interpretive gloss is defensible but transforms the statutory exclusion into a jury direction of Byzantine complexity. Lord Judge CJ's judgment in Clinton is a valiant attempt at reconciliation, but it is doubtful that juries can reliably distinguish infidelity-as-context from infidelity-as-trigger. Alan Norrie has argued that the exclusion reflects moral panic rather than principle, and its practical effect may be to obscure rather than clarify the normative judgments at stake.
The objective element (s 54(1)(c)) adopts a compromise position: only sex and age are attributed, but "circumstances" may include D's history (e.g. of abuse). This follows Holley in rejecting the dilution of self-control standards by D's mental characteristics, and it is defensible as a matter of principle. However, it does not resolve the underlying tension between individualised justice and community standards. A jury must imagine a person of D's age and sex, with normal tolerance and self-restraint, in D's circumstances—but those circumstances may include a lifetime of trauma. The degree to which such circumstances affect what is "normal" remains contested.
Diminished responsibility: medicalisation and its limits
The redrafted s 2 is an improvement in clarity and diagnostic rigour. "Recognised medical condition" ties the defence to accepted psychiatric nosology (ICD, DSM), and the specification of three capacities provides structure. R v Dowds [2012] EWCA Crim 281 correctly held that transient voluntary intoxication is not a medical condition, preserving the policy that drunkenness does not excuse. R v Golds [2016] UKSC 61 clarified that "substantial" means "important," not "moderate," and endorsed the jury's role as ultimate arbiter.
Yet problems remain. The requirement of a recognised medical condition medicalises the inquiry, potentially marginalising moral judgment. As Nicola Lacey observes, the jury is invited to defer to psychiatric expertise, even though the ultimate question—whether this defendant's culpability is sufficiently diminished to warrant a manslaughter verdict—is normative, not clinical. Golds reasserts the jury's authority, but in practice, unanimous psychiatric evidence is hard to disregard. The risk is that diminished responsibility becomes a battle of experts, with the jury as passive adjudicator.
Furthermore, the line between conditions that qualify and those that do not can be arbitrary. Adjustment disorder, accepted in R v Blackman [2017] EWCA Crim 190, is a controversial diagnosis; some psychiatrists regard it as a catch-all. Developmental disorders, personality disorders, and trauma-related syndromes occupy a spectrum, and the law's categorical approach (recognised/not recognised, substantial/not substantial) sits uneasily with the dimensional nature of psychopathology.
Theoretical coherence
A principled partial-defence regime should rest on a clear theoretical foundation: excuse (D's capacities were undermined), justification (D's conduct was less wrongful), or a hybrid. Diminished responsibility is an excuse: D lacked the rational or volitional capacities for full responsibility. Loss of control is harder to categorise. It is not a justification—there is no right to kill even in response to grave provocation. Nor is it a pure excuse, since the trigger must be objectively serious and D's reaction objectively understandable. It is best understood as a concession to human frailty: the law acknowledges that some provocations would overwhelm the self-control of an ordinary person, and in those cases reduced censure is appropriate.
This rationale is coherent, but the 2009 Act's implementation is inconsistent. The exclusion of sexual infidelity suggests that the law will not concede frailty in response to certain grievances, however deeply felt. The high thresholds ("extremely grave," "justifiable") constrain the defence more tightly than the old provocation test. These choices reflect policy judgments about which killings merit mitigation, but they are not obviously grounded in a unifying principle. Jeremy Horder has argued that the law should focus on whether D's emotional response was appropriate to the circumstances; the 2009 Act gestures in this direction but does not commit.
Conclusion
The 2009 reforms addressed real and serious defects in the old law: the gendered suddenness requirement, the doctrinal confusion over characteristics, and the archaic language of diminished responsibility. In those respects, the Act is progressive. However, the new law is not without difficulty. The loss-of-control provisions are complex, riddled with interpretive puzzles (sexual infidelity, revenge), and constrained by thresholds that may exclude deserving defendants. Diminished responsibility is clearer but medicalised, and the "substantial impairment" standard remains contestable. Neither defence rests on a single, coherent normative theory.
The 2009 Act is better characterised as a pragmatic, piecemeal reform—responsive to specific criticisms and political pressures—than as a principled reconstruction. A truly principled approach would require comprehensive homicide-law reform of the kind proposed by the Law Commission in 2006, including abolition of the mandatory life sentence and a structured hierarchy of homicide offences. Parliament chose incremental amendment instead. The result is workable but theoretically untidy—a reflection, perhaps, of the common law's evolutionary character and the limits of legislative ambition.
---
Word count: ~2,030