Online CPD scheme providing 12 hours for £60: suitable for solicitors, barristers, psychiatrists, social workers and psychiatric nurses
Magic Book | Email updates | Email discussion list | Online updates | Case law | CPD scheme | Books | Jobs | Events

R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2, [2012] MHLO 2

Revision as of 23:44, 30 October 2016 by Jonathan (talk | contribs) (Text replacement - "{{bailii|" to "{{#bailii:")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

In the new 'loss of control' partial defence to murder, which replaces the provocation defence, when determining whether a loss of self-control had a 'qualifying trigger' (as set out in s55(3) and (4) Coroners and Justice Act 2009) 'the fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded' (s55(6)(c)). The Court of Appeal held that where sexual infidelity is integral to and forms an essential part of the context in which to make a just evaluation whether a qualifying trigger properly falls within the ambit of subsections 55(3) and (4), the prohibition in section 55(6)(c) does not operate to exclude it.


Judgment: 17/1/12

Hearing: 25/10/11

Before: The Lord Chief Justice, Henriques J and Gloster J, DBE

M Birnbaum QC for Clinton (1)

W Harbage QC for Parker (2)

C Clee QC for Evans (3)

A Edis QC for the Crown

External link