Loss of Self Control
It used to be that the loss of control needed to be sudden, now however it can develop over time. Many of the older cases demonstrate the old law but it is conceivable that the outcome now would be different. * Ahluwalia (1992) * D was in an abusive relationship for many years and went to bed once night being threatened that if she didn’t pay the bill she would get more violence. She waited until he was asleep, poured petrol over him and set him alight. He died six days later. She was convinced of murder and was not allowed to use provocation as her response was not sudden enough, she later appealed on diminished responsibility. * ( Her appeal would have likely succeeded now due to a change in the law she also showed a fear of violence)
The two tests * The subjective test and the objective test * Subjective test – D must be shown to have actually lost his self-control. If there is evidence that his actions were premeditated, or that he had been able to compose himself between the provocation and the killing, then the evidence cannot be left to the jury. * The objective test: Having decided that the defendant was provoked. The jury must decide whether a responsible man would have acted as the defendant did. In the language of statue “The question whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as he did …taking into account everything both done and said according to the effect…it would have an a reasonable man” * Broken down, this objective ingredient has two elements. The first element calls for an assessment of the gravity if the provocation. The second is element calls for application of an external standard of self-control: whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as he did.

Self-Control * So the jury has to decide whether the defendant has been provoked by things said