Loss of Control: The Qualifying Triggers, Self-Induced Loss of Self-Control and ‘Cumulative Impact’
| Author | Tony Storey |
| DOI | 10.1350/1740-5580-77.3.189 |
| Published date | 01 June 2013 |
| Date | 01 June 2013 |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
Loss of Control: the Qualifying Triggers, Self-induced
Loss of Self-control and ‘Cumulative Impact’
R vDawes (Carlos); R vHatter (Mark John); R vBowyer (Barry Francis)
[2013] EWCA Crim 322
Keywords Murder; Loss of control; Qualifying triggers
The first appellant, Carlo Dawes (D), had come home to his Brighton flat
in the early hours of one morning in May 2012 to find Graeme Pethard
(P) asleep on the sofa with Dawes’ estranged wife, Kayleigh Chessell (C).
Both were fully clothed. There was no dispute that soon afterwards D
stabbed P in the neck with a kitchen knife; the wound penetrated the
right lung and caused death. D was charged with murder at Lewes
Crown Court. The prosecution case, based on C’s evidence, was that D,
on finding C and P on the sofa together, had flown into a jealous rage
and had attacked P using his fists and a bottle of vodka. By this point D
was ‘very angry’. He had then gone into the kitchen, found a kitchen
knife, returned to the living room and stabbed P in the neck, killing
him.
The defence case was that P had woken up when D returned to the
flat and that it was P who had attacked D with the vodka bottle, and that
although D had stabbed P with the knife, he had done so in self-defence.
As an alternative, defence counsel suggested that the judge should direct
the jury on the loss of control defence under s. 54 of the Coroners and
Justice Act 2009. The trial judge, Brown J, decided that no qualifying
trigger was available to D because he had incited the violence offered to
him by P, and hence loss of control was precluded by s. 55(6) of the 2009
Act. D was convicted of murder. D appealed, contending, inter alia, that
the defence should have been left to the jury on the basis that s. 55(6)
only served to disapply either or both of the qualifying triggers if the
defendant had incited violence with the specific purpose of providing
himself with an excuse to use it.
The second appellant, Mark Hatter (H), had fatally stabbed his
estranged partner Dawn Backhouse (W), at her home in Sheffield in
June 2011. W and H had been in a relationship for about a year, but W
had ended it and indicated that she intended to leave Sheffield to return
to her native Maidstone where she was in a new relationship with a man
called Dave Brunger. Just before midnight on the night in question, H
had been seen by a neighbour climbing up and entering W’s house
through an upstairs window. Soon afterwards the pair began arguing in
the kitchen, loudly enough for W’s neighbours to overhear. One neigh-
bour gave evidence that H had said ‘Have you shagged Dave?’ to which
W had replied, ‘No, I’ve only kissed him’. Shortly after that, H stabbed W
in the chest, killing her. H was charged with murder at Sheffield Crown
Court. The prosecution case was that H had killed W in a premeditated
murder. H pleaded not guilty. He admitted taking the knife to W’s house,
Loss of Control
189
To continue reading
Request your trial