R v Jewell
A planned killing carried out in a calm and controlled way showed no loss of self control, so the defence was rightly withdrawn from the jury.
Facts
Mr Jewell shot a colleague dead as the colleague arrived at work. He had packed a bag with a gun, knives, a garotte and other items, and he planned to flee. He said that he had been feeling ill and under great stress because of the victim's threatening behaviour towards him, and that he had lost control. The judge refused to leave the defence of loss of control to the jury, and he was convicted of murder.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. Rafferty LJ said that loss of control is the loss of the ability to act in accordance with considered judgment or a loss of normal powers of reasoning. A judge must leave the defence to the jury if there is sufficient evidence on which a jury, properly directed, could reasonably conclude that the defence might apply, but there was no such evidence here. The planning and the calm way in which Mr Jewell carried out the killing showed that he had not lost control.
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 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
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.
