Loss of Self-Control: A Reminder of the Particularly High Threshold: R v Dawson [2021] EWCA Crim 40
| Author | Mark Thomas |
| Published date | 01 April 2021 |
| Date | 01 April 2021 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0022018321996085 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
Case Note
Loss of Self-Control:
A Reminder of the
Particularly High Threshold
R v Dawson [2021] EWCA Crim 40
Keywords
Murder, manslaughter, loss of self-control
With effect from 4 October 2010, the partial defence of loss of self-control replaced the previous partial
defence of provocation. Sections 54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act (CJA) 2009 brought about
this change, ridding the common law of this outdated defence. Since that time, however, a large body of
case law has arisen to determine the full extent and meaning of new defence, especially in light of its
predecessor. Two particular features of contention that have arisen include the threshold to be met in
order for the defence of loss of self-control to be made out, and the role of the judge in evaluating the
evidence that an actual loss of self-control existed.
Dawson concerned applications for leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence of Carol and
Scott Dawson, for the murder of Gary Dean. This case note will focus on the application for leave to
appeal against conviction brought by Scott Dawson (D).
For a number of years, the victim (V) was an evident annoyance to D, often acting in an antisocial
manner, including the alleged harassment of, and causing damage to property belonging to, D. By way of
particular examples, D had previously complained to the police that V had broken windows, interfered
with machinery and threatened to burn down D’s barn. Criminal charges in relation to these various
incidents were brought against V in 2018, however, he was acquitted of all charges following trial in the
magistrates’ court.
The Crown’s case was that on 6 September 2018, D, alongside his mother, Carol, had killed V out of
revenge for the trouble he had caused to them (both mentally and financially). V had allegedly started a
fire in the woods close to a stile leadin g to D’s field; this was, according to the Cr own, the final
provocative act that led to a brutal and sustained attack on V.
At trial, the Crown’s case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence; there being no direct
evidence to demonstrate that D, nor his mother, had been involved in the killing. Such circum-
stantial evidence included the hostility felt towards V due to V’s previous antisocial conduct,
telephone records to the police from D indicating threatening language to V, text messages between
D and his girlfriend indicating a desire to catch and grab V, and pellets from an air rifle, matching
those found in Carol Dawson’s garage, were found lodged in V’s spine from a shot wound. The
Crown’s case was simple: the culmination of these strands of circumstantial evidence proved D’s
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defence case, on the other hand, was that neither D nor his mother had been involved in the
killing. While D did not give evidence at trial, the argument made by the defence was that the Crown had
failed to prove his guilt due to their heavy reliance on circumstantial evidence and their consequent
assumptions were unsupported by that circumstantial evidence. The pair were convicted in the Crown
Court by unanimous verdicts in August 2019.
The Journal of Criminal Law
2021, Vol. 85(2) 161–164
ªThe Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022018321996085
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial