^Voluntary Manslaughter > Loss of Control – Voluntary Manslaughter
This defence was newly introduced in 2010 and abolished the defence of provocation. Section 54 (1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 provides the following:
(1) Where a person kills or is a party to the killing of another D is not to be convicted of murder if
(a) D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D’s loss of self-control,
(b) the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, and
(c) a person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.
The loss of self control need not be sudden, which can be seen as further broadening the scope of this defence in respect of victims of domestic violence or abuse. The defence however specifically excludes revenge attacks.
Section 55 of the CJA 2009 states that the following amount to qualifying triggers:
the defendant’s loss of self-control was attributable to the defendant’s fear of serious violence from the victim against the defendant or another person or,
the defendant’s loss of self-control was attributable to a thing or things done or said (or both) which:
(a) constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and
(b) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged or
the defendant’s loss of self-control was attributable to a combination of the above two triggers.
A fear of serious violence is to be disregarded to the extent that it was caused by something which the defendant incited to be said or done for the purposes of providing an excuse to use violence. Similarly a sense of being seriously wronged is not justified if the defendant incited the thing to be said or done for the purposes of providing an excuse to use violence. Furthermore a fact that a thing said or done constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded.
This element of the defence requires looking at the defendant in terms of how an ordinary person of the defendant’s sex and age would react. Furthermore it allows for all of the individual’s circumstances to be taken into consideration.^
Found the above, it very much appears to apply to this woman.