The concept of "loss of control" as a partial defense to murder under UK law is legally complex and requires careful consideration of both the circumstances and the timing of the defendant's reaction.
Under Section 54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the defense of "loss of control" allows a defendant to be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder if they were provoked, lost control, and acted in a way that a person of normal tolerance might have reacted similarly.
This defense aims to recognize that, while the killing was deliberate, it was influenced by a loss of self-control due to a qualifying trigger.
However, the idea that a defendant could claim "loss of control" when the death results from a prolonged or sustained action, such as strangulation, is legally contentious. Strangulation, as you correctly note, takes time often over a minute or more and can reflect a level of deliberation that challenges the claim of a momentary loss of control.
In such cases, the act may appear less impulsive and more calculated, undermining the validity of the defense.
The critical issue lies in the statutory requirement that the loss of control must be "immediate" or "sudden."
A sustained act like strangulation that lasts over a minute often points to a level of composure and planning inconsistent with a sudden loss of control. While it is possible for someone to experience intense emotional disturbance, the length of time involved in strangulation raises doubts about whether the defendant truly acted without the ability to control their actions.
As for cases where a defendant leaves the room to fetch a weapon, this may further undermine the claim of loss of control, as it suggests time for reflection and an opportunity to regain composure.
The jury’s decision to accept the defense of loss of control in such cases could be seen as controversial, as it involves the subjective perception of the jurors about whether the defendant's response was proportionate and whether the loss of control was truly sudden.
Ultimately, the defense of "loss of control" must be carefully scrutinized in these situations. In cases where prolonged actions like strangulation are involved, and where there is evidence of calm deliberation (such as retrieving a weapon), it would be legally appropriate to challenge the legitimacy of such a defense.
The jury’s verdicts, particularly those that seem to result in disproportionately lenient sentences, might warrant further judicial scrutiny to ensure that the law is applied fairly and that such defenses are not misused to minimize accountability for serious offenses.