R v Clinton
Sexual infidelity cannot by itself be a qualifying trigger for loss of control, but it can be taken into account as part of the context.
Facts
Mr Clinton killed his wife after she told him she had been having an affair, taunted him about it and told him he did not have the courage to kill himself, as he had been threatening to do. He was convicted of murder after the judge refused to leave the defence of loss of control to the jury, because section 55(6)(c) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 provides that sexual infidelity is to be disregarded in deciding whether there was a qualifying trigger. The appeal was heard with two others raising issues about the new defence.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a retrial. Lord Judge CJ said that although sexual infidelity on its own cannot be a qualifying trigger, it does not have to be ignored where it is integral to the facts as a whole. Where there is another potential qualifying trigger, such as the wife's taunts about the defendant's suicidal feelings, the sexual infidelity can be taken into account as part of the context in assessing whether the defendant had a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged and how a person of normal tolerance and self restraint would have reacted.
Related cases on murder and voluntary manslaughter
- Attorney General for Jersey v Holley [2005] UKPC 23, [2005] 2 AC 580
- R v Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889
- R v Asmelash [2013] EWCA Crim 157, [2014] QB 103
- R v Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396
- R v Challen [2019] EWCA Crim 916
- R v Dawes; R v Hatter; R v Bowyer [2013] EWCA Crim 322, [2014] 1 WLR 947
- R v Dietschmann [2003] UKHL 10, [2003] 1 AC 1209
- R v Dowds [2012] EWCA Crim 281, [2012] 1 WLR 2576
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
