In the article “The Coroners and Justice Act 2009-patial defence to murder (1) Loss of control”, the professor Alan Norrie is debating the new law which came into force in 2010 regarding the partial defence of loss of self-control. The article is based on the Law Commission’s approaches to this subject and the amendments brought in the law which now covers loss of control arising from anger or fear. The article offers an objective revise of the new law in a criticizing manner and few arguments in comparing it with the old law. The article is divided in seven parts, each part discuss about an element of the partial defence. In the first part of the article the professor explains the 2009 Act and then continues further on with evaluating the way in which the elements of loss of self-control have changed.
Murders before coming into force of the s55 of the Coroners and Justice Act was governed by the partial defence of the provocation. Under the provocation defence the defendant was required to show that he/she lost their self-control due to things said or done. Provocation has its roots in the seventeen century, and its basis was set out in the judgement of Devlin J in Duffy.The common law concept was amended by s.3 of the Homicide Act 1957 and was establishing that the trigger had to be some form of human action. The Duffy definition was extended by further case law which were stating that the provocation did not have to come from the victim and it did had to be directed at the accused person. It was stated also that there had to be a sudden and temporary loss of self control, requirement which prove itself to be very controversial later on. The ruling in Duffy pointed that it must be taken into account the accused mental state in which the defendant must no longer to be the master of his mind and the physical dimension of the defendant reaction.
Under the common