R v Dawes; R v Hatter; R v Bowyer
Guidance on the loss of control defence, including that a defendant who incites violence cannot rely on it, and that the loss of control need not be sudden.
Facts
Three appeals were heard together, all concerning the defence of loss of control under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. In Dawes, the defendant killed a man he found asleep with his wife, after the man attacked him with a bottle. In Hatter, the defendant killed his former girlfriend after she ended their relationship. In Bowyer, the defendant killed a man whose house he had broken into, after the man insulted his girlfriend.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals and gave guidance on the defence. Lord Judge CJ said that the loss of control need not be sudden, but there must be a genuine loss of control. A defendant cannot rely on a qualifying trigger that he deliberately incited in order to provide an excuse to use violence, but the mere fact that he caused the situation does not automatically exclude the defence. The breakdown of a relationship would not normally give the defendant a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged, and a burglar could not rely on insults from the householder whose home he had invaded.
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 Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2, [2013] QB 1
- 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.
