Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Hey,

    I need help in finding cases to support my argument. There don't appear to be many!

    I'm appealing on decision of the case of R v Nolan -

    Where the woman stabbed her cheating husband (who refused to have a child with her, yet had a child with the woman he cheated with) - the courts said:

    such evidence was inadmissible by s. 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

    I'm the lead appellant and my ground is:

    1. notwithstanding s. 55(6)(c) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, sexual infidelity should be considered by the jury where it forms a relevant part of the history to the case rather than being the cause of the loss of self-control, and
    S.55(6)(c) being:

    (6)In determining whether a loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger—
    (c)the fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded.

    I really can't find any cases to support this.

    Any help would be appreciated.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone know any cases? :erm:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Is R v Nolan an actual case? If so do you have the citation? If not, post up what you have. There aren't any 'loss of control cases', so you're going to have to rely on provocation cases in order to prove your points...give me some more details of the case & I'll try & help.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bunkus)
    Is R v Nolan an actual case? If so do you have the citation? If not, post up what you have. There aren't any 'loss of control cases', so you're going to have to rely on provocation cases in order to prove your points...give me some more details of the case & I'll try & help.
    Thanks for the reply.

    Ah I see, that's why I wasn't finding any cases!

    No it isn't an actual case. However here are the facts:

    Spoiler:
    Show



    David and Laura Nolan were married in 2000 when they were aged 30 and 20 respectively. Laura worked as a cat-walk model and David was her agent. Neither of them wanted to have children at that time, but in 2005, Laura told David she wanted to have a baby and take a couple of years away from work to raise their child. David refused, telling Laura he didn’t want her to lose her looks, and in any event, neither of them could afford to live without her income. He had sexual intercourse with Laura after that time only if he wore a condom.

    In September 2010, Laura was asked to model a new range of clothes for an international fashion house but she had to lose eight kilograms of weight to fit into the tiny clothes. Laura stopped eating all food except for broccoli for a month. This dietary regime caused her insomnia, a feeling of weakness and uncharacteristic outbursts of anger.

    On the 11th October 2010, as Laura was about to start the fashion show, she received a text message telling her that David had been having a number of extra-marital affairs for the past few years and that in 2006, he had fathered a daughter by another woman. She immediately confronted David with this. He replied that the other woman could afford to have kids because her body “wasn’t anything good to look at in the first place.” In a rage, Laura stabbed David to death with a pair of scissors.

    Laura was charged with David’s murder. At the trial, the judge refused to allow the jury to hear evidence of David’s extra-marital affairs because such evidence was inadmissible by s. 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The judge also refused a defence application to adduce expert evidence about Laura’s dietary regime and the possible hormonal imbalances caused by it, because such evidence would be outside any “normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint” that a person of her age and sex in her circumstances might have.

    The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the charge of murder. Laura now appeals to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that:

    My ground of appeal:

    1. notwithstanding s. 55(6)(c) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, sexual infidelity should be considered by the jury where it forms a relevant part of the history to the case rather than being the cause of the loss of self-control,






    Thanks in advance.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.criminallawandjustice.co....f-control.html
    The explanatory notes state that the test for “justifiable sense of being seriously wronged” is an objective test, but this begs the question whether this is a “purely” objective test, or whether the defendant is judged against a reasonable person sharing the characteristics of the defendant which affected his or her assessment of the things said or done. With provocation, when assessing whether a reasonable person would have been provoked, the reasonable person is of the same age and sex as the defendant and shares the characteristics of the defendant which affect the gravity of the provocation; Camplin [1978] 2 All ER 168. By way of example, if a defendant with a speech impediment is taunted about the way he speaks, when considering if a reasonable person would have been provoked, this will be a person of the same age and sex as the defendant who has a speech impediment;(cat walk model?) the impediment affects the “gravity” of the provocation in that it makes it more provoking. Given that this aspect of provocation was not subject to criticism it is submitted that the new test will consider relevant characteristics of the defendant. In addition to problems of interpretation is the question of what is meant by “seriously” wronged, as opposed to merely “wronged”. Parliament has specifically identified one factor that will not amount to a qualifying trigger: “things done or said” does not include sexual infidelity; s.55(6)(c). This is in contrast to provocation. In Davies [1975] 1 All ER 890, the defence of provocation was available to a defendant who had been provoked by his wife’s adultery. T special treatment, when other triggers that perhapshe explanatorynotes state that it is the “fact” of sexual infidelity that must be disregarded under the provision and that something connected to sexual infidelity may still count as a qualifying trigger, such as the discovery of incest. T


    Loss of Self-control

    Once the qualifying trigger has been identified, it must be assessed whether this led to a loss of self-control; s.54(1) (b), which according to s.54(2) need not be “sudden”. This is to be contrasted with provocation where the loss of self control must be temporary andsudden. In relation to provocation, the difficulties faced by battered women have been well documented. In Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889, it was held that those who kill as a result of domestic violence after a slow burn reaction may be able to rely upon the defence as “sudden” does not mean immediate. However, success is unlikely where there is an obvious delay between the provocation and the killing. In these cases self defence often fails too, due to a disproportionate use of force. It appears that similar defendants will now have the opportunity to rely on the new defence. Having said this, it must be noted that the explanatory notes state that the Judge and jury can still take into account any delay between the relevant incident and the killing when deciding the issue of loss of self-control. In this respect the new defence is not as radical as it first appears.

    Have you considered going on the grounds of 'insanity' caused by the hormonal imbalance?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bunkus)
    ...
    Wow, thanks a lot for the above. Much appreciated and +rep'd.

    I've been busy with other stuff so I'm going to hit the library tomorrow, I shall definitely also look into insanity as well. I don't why I was just concentrating on finding cases for infidelity that I completely disregarded other avenues!

    That's a great link, lots of relevant information
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I just wanted to clarify: As the new defence of 'loss of self control' is not yet in force, would referring to it be seen in a negative way? As it is going to come into force so referring to both Provocation and 'loss of self' control should be ok?

    edit: would 'longing for a child' be considered as a relevant characteristic for the reasonable person?

    the reasonable person is of the same age and sex as the defendant and shares the characteristics of the defendant which affect the gravity of the provocation;
    As surely someone who doesn't want or like kids would not have reacted in the same way (possibly).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There's definitely an argument that finding out he'd fathered kids goes further than more sexual infidelity.

    Not sure about the insanity point - it's a pretty high bar.

    The relevant provisions of the CJA 2009 came into force on 4th October 2010 I believe. If this is so you should refer only to the defence of loss of control as provocation is abolished by the CJA 2009.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am the respondant for this moot point! Struggling on the neccessary elements I need to raise, plus cases to support!
    Any help would be greatly appreciated
    Many thanks
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am junior appealant for the second grounds of appeal :/ SO stuck. Any ideas anyone?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe 'sex & age' relevant as well as sharing the characteristics...a woman of a certain age is more likely to want a child.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: March 25, 2011

University open days

  1. University of Bradford
    University-wide Postgraduate
    Wed, 25 Jul '18
  2. University of Buckingham
    Psychology Taster Tutorial Undergraduate
    Wed, 25 Jul '18
  3. Bournemouth University
    Clearing Campus Visit Undergraduate
    Wed, 1 Aug '18
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.