I have left my moot skeleton argument really late and I am struggling to come up with 2 submissions for my appeal point, I am the junior appeallant and I have never done a moot before, so I have been focusing on making sure I am doing it right rather than the content.
Basically my point of appeal is : Under s. 54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009, whether a jury should be permitted to consider the circumstances of the defendant where his or her characteristics are not necessarily ones that a person of normal tolerance and self-restraint might have.
So I need two submissions for this and then the relevant authorities for my points;
I know I need to look at the cases of provocation because there is a lack of 'loss of self control cases' but there is so many I am not sure where to start; if anyone had any ideas to get me started then that would be amazing. I think I need to focus on finding a case where medical evidence was used as a relevant characteristic of a reasonable man?
It has to be in tomorrow so I am going to soldier on and if anyone has any ideas it would be very appreciated
Facts Of the Case :
R v Nolan
In the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
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: Under s. 54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009, whether a jury should be permitted to consider the circumstances of the defendant where his or her characteristics are not necessarily ones that a person of normal tolerance and self-restraint might have.
x Turn on thread page Beta
Moot Help Loss Of Self Control watch
- Thread Starter
- 24-03-2011 18:22