Criminal Law - Essay ExampleIt was held that in determining whether or not the defendant lost his/her self-control, the jury may consider that are not confined to the defendant’s age and gender.6 Therefore Douglas, having just returned from a long road trip and having found his young wife in bed with his neighbour may be mitigating factors. Douglas appears to have been in total control however. He went to a pub which might indicate that the incident did not provoke him to such an extent that he lost control and acted in the heat of passion. However, by virtue of Section 54(2) of the 2009 the loss of self-control element does not have to be sudden.7 Therefore the fact that Douglas went to a pub after finding his wife in bed with the neighbour prior to stabbing the neighbour will not be a factor in his defence of provocation. The most significant problem for Douglas is proving that the stabbing was not an act of revenge. According to Section 54(4), Section 54(1) will not apply if “D acted in a considered desire for revenge�.8 However, since the 2009 Act fails to define what is a “considered desire for revenge� this part of the provocation defence is difficult to assess at this time. It may be that Douglas’ intoxication may act as evidence that he was not acting in revenge since the word considered tends to suggest that some thought and preparation preceded the act. The ultimate test for Douglas is provided for under Section 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Section 55 provides that the qualifying trigger is satisfied if things that were said and/or done were of an “extremely grave character� and “caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged�.9 In this regard, having returned home from a long road trip and finding his young wife in bed with the neighbour may be considered conduct of a seriously grave character to justify a sense of being seriously wronged. Unfortunately, Section 55(c) will deprive Douglas of this defence because, infidelity is not a qualifying trigger. 10 Douglas will therefore not be able to use the provocation defence by virtue of Section 54 of the 2009 Act. The defence of intoxication relies on distinguishing between being drunk and intoxicated. For instance an individual may be drunk when he/she commits a criminal act that he/she would not otherwise commit in a sober state. However, the defence of intoxication is not available if the mens rea for the offence charged was formed while the defendant was drunk.11 As the court cautioned in Sheehan, “a drunken intent is nevertheless an intent�.12 The court went on to state that: The jury should merely be instructed to have regard to all the evidence, including that relating to drink, to draw such inferences as they think proper from the evidence, and on that basis to ask themselves whether they feel sure that at the material time the defendant had the requisite intent.13 This ruling is very important to Douglas’s defence of intoxication. This means that the jury is entitled to take into consideration the facts and circumstances occurring prior to Douglas’
