Responent argument oral presentation PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Responent argument oral presentation PDF

Description

The appellant argues the qualifying trigger was caused by circumstances which sexual infidelity is merely a part of. Though the appellant argues paragraph 39 of the judgement of R v Clinton where the Court of Appeal suggests when sexual infidelity is merely part of the circumstances it can be taken into consideration as a qualifying trigger, which within this case the appellant argues the circumstances to be David’s action of putting his arms around Rebekah and Rebekah’s statements degrading Ross after his accusation of the affair. However, it has been discussed that Ross and Rebekah’s marriage has been an unhappy one that included many arguments, taken this into consideration alongside the circumstances which have been discussed, this suggests that the reason Ross lost self-control and pushed this argument further than the ones previous, was David’s involvement with Rebekah along with her comments which has subjectively confirmed to Ross that they are having an affair. It could be argued that the circumstances presented cannot be distinguished from the factor of sexual infidelity and instead it subjectively provides confirmation to Ross’s accusations of the affair, presenting that Ross’s reaction was purely caused by the assumption of sexual infidelity. Therefore, supporting the trial judge’s exclusion of the defence. It is also worth addressing, that the use of Clinton has been criticised to go against Parliament’s intentions within s55(6)(c) of the Coroners Justice Act that specifically identifies that sexual infidelity is not a thing said or done and therefore cannot amount to a qualifying trigger, and has made the defence concerning sexual infidelity complicated and unclear – this is argued by Findlay Stark where he suggests the inclusion of sexual infidelity will firstly, provide difficulty in determining what actually caused the loss of control for the trial judge, and secondly, if considered by the jury it would not be uncommon they would get confused in whether or not sexual infidelity is relevant or not. Following the criticisms addressed one could validly argue that the appellants use of R v Clinton to support the argument that the sexual infidelity was merely part of the circumstances is limited and that the jury should not need to consider it alongside the circumstances as it would be difficult to distinguish sexual infidelity apart from the circumstances and therefore provide confusion. Due to the argument presented excluding a qualifying trigger due to sexual infidelity. One could question whether Ross actually lost self-control as seen within the case R v Dawe where there was insufficient evidence to satisfy the first requirement of loss of control. Though it is mentioned that Ross "sees red", it has been discussed that the requirement of loss of control plays a minor role within the defence compared to there needing to be a qualifying trigger which when provided the court may just infer there was a loss control. This may suggest that due to the lack of a qualifying trigger Ross may not have acted out of loss of control but instead acted on anger or revenge for David being involved with his wife, and as identified within s54(2) of the Coroners Justice Act “acts out of a desire for revenge, the defence will not be available”. Furthermore, it is questionable why Ross lunges at David instead of Rebekah who is his partner, which one may argue suggests Ross's reaction is one of revenge due to his belief of infidelity. As previously discussed there are previous instances of disputes between the couple and the neighbours which have not resulted in harm. Due to this, it is arguable that Ross within this situation had not acted within a degree of tolerance and self-restraint as previously to our knowledge remained to a degree non-violent within disputes. As identified within s54 of the Coroners Justice Act to satisfy the defence of loss of control it must be shown “a person of the defendant’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the

circumstances of the defendant, might have reacted in the same or similar way to the defendant”. Consequently, one could argue a person of Ross’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in Ross’s circumstance’s would not have reacted in a similar way, and though one could argue that Ross was intoxicated at the time which affected his reaction it was identified within the case R v Asmelash that the jury is to ignore the intoxication when applying the reasonable test set out within this element. To conclude this argument, the trial judge was correct to exclude the defence of loss of control due to the assumption of sexual infidelity being purely the cause to Ross’s actions, furthermore this supports the idea that due to a lack of a qualifying trigger it is questionable if Ross lost self-control and if so that a person within his circumstance would not have acted in a similar way. Though it was extremely difficult and time consuming to find statistics that specifically concerned sexual infidelity within loss of control. After some extensive research I did however find some statistics to support my first argument that discussed criticisms of the judgement of R v Clinton concerning sexual infidelity which directly conflicts with s55(6)(c) of the Coroners Justice Act. As previously discussed one of the criticisms is that it goes against Parliament’s intentions, this can be further supported through the statistical data that presents in 2009 the House of Lords voted against the motion to exclude sexual infidelity as a trigger for loss of control by 99 votes to 84 – though this is a small majority it does present that a house within parliament did not intend to allow sexual infidelity to be a qualifying trigger of loss of control. To conclude, overall statistical data can be valuable to support and develop your argument further depending on the area you are arguing, as presented the statistic I have found has proven valuable in supporting my argument within this case....