Search

The revolution of the partial defences to murder by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 may have had a catastrophic impact on cases of mercy killing.1 While previously shoehorned into the diminished responsibility plea, the medicalisation of this defence may prevent such a ploy. However, a recent case has offered insight into the circumstances which may still result in a manslaughter conviction for mercy killers through a new avenue previously thought impermissible. This article will discuss the case and those similar, alongside charging decisions and just results. Mercy killing remains a grey area in the criminal justice system, but is there light at the end of the tunnel? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article will reflect on the adoption of s. 76 Serious Crime Act 2015 which criminalises coercive or controlling behaviour in an intimate or family relationship and considers an argument for aligning partial defences to murder with it. It takes inspiration from the case of Sally Challen, granted leave to appeal her murder conviction at the Court of Appeal on 1st March 2018. Leave was granted after her lawyers successfully persuaded the court that the introduction of s. 76 Serious Crime Act 2015 amounted to fresh evidence in her defence that was unavailable at the time of her trial in 2011. Lady Justice Rafferty stated that, "It should be plainly understood that the application made today is but one step in what, it is hoped by counsel, those who instruct her and many others concerned in this case, will be a full detailed exploration of the position, based on scholarship, learning and clinical expertise, which should prevail now... A jury, it is argued, should, with the benefit of that learning, be enabled to reach a clear settled conclusion on the basis of an understanding which, it is said, was not available to the jury in 2011." The arguments at her appeal will seek to reduce her murder conviction to manslaughter, providing an opportunity for this article to explore the complexities of aligning the partial defences to murder with the offence of coercive or controlling behaviour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the operation of the reformed English diminished responsibility plea in mercy killer cases. In particular, it makes three claims. First, it predicts that—like its predecessor—the revised doctrine will be stretched, where necessary, to accommodate these offenders. This is because (i) normative arguments remain for convicting them of manslaughter instead of murder and (ii) other partial defence routes will usually be unavailable. Secondly, it contends that such pragmatism will now be facilitated by a disconnect between (i) the defence’s post-reform narrowing and (ii) its ongoing interpretive flexibility. Thirdly, given that disconnect, it suggests that this pragmatism will be problematic. Notably, it will (i) compromise the plea’s newfound coherence and (ii) exacerbate unfair labelling of mercy killers. Ultimately, and more broadly, these difficulties reinforce recent calls for further homicide law reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a court case which provides a good opportunity to examine the application of the new statutory loss of control defence. In R v Zebedee (John), John Zebedee was charged with killing his 94-year-old father who suffered from senile dementia. The defendant relied, inter alia, on loss of control, but he eventually was convicted of murder and appealed.

The article discusses several criminal court cases. In one case, the defendants, Yvette Luffman and Wayne Briscoe, were convicted for counselling and commissioning a crime. In another case, the respondent had stood a trial for an offense of dishonestly handling nine mobile telephones, knowing them to have been stolen. In another case, the defendant murdered a homosexual while in an extremely drunken state.

The article discusses three British Court of Appeal cases dealing with murder, voluntary manslaughter, loss of control, and sufficient evidence. It examines the evidences of loss of control in the cases which are reportedly insufficient that led the courts to dismiss the appeals. Also explored are the rights of defendants to seek to be excused from being held guilty for murder.