Law and Legal Studies – Formative Debate Notes – P441694

Module code: FC319

Module title: Law and Legal Studies
Cohort and group: Jan ’24
Assessment title for project: Formative Debate Notes
Project title: Counsel for Michelle should argue for the conviction of Michelle on
manslaughter charges (defense)
Tutor’s Name: Omotayo Idowu
Student ID number: P441694
Date of submission: 26/05/2024
Word count:

Student Declaration: I confirm that this assignment is my own work.

Where I have referred to academic sources, I have provided in-text citations and included the sources
in the final reference list

Argument: Battered Woman Syndrome:

Michelle’s conviction that she was in a position of immediate risk was supported by
her (alleged) diagnosis of Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS), which is a sub-
category under PTSD, and may cause people diagnosed with it to feel helpless and
wrongfully believe that they deserve the inevitable abuse. In section 52 of the
Coroners and Justice Act 2009, ss 1(1)(a, b, c), R v. Ahluwalia [1992] set a
precedent for identifying BWS as having an effect on a defendant’s threat perception
and their response to abuse. This clearly explains Michelle’s actions towards John as
being a reaction to fear or trauma, rather than a predetermined intent to kill; thus,
fulfilling the requirements for reducing her sentence from Murder to Voluntary
Manslaughter, as per section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957.

Potential Counterargument: No Immediate Threat:

Michelle actions do not meet the factors required for being charged with Voluntary
Manslaughter as there was no immediate threat to her life at the time of the killing. It
is stated that “John was seated and unarmed when she shot him”. Since there is no
evidence that there was a threat on the defendant’s life; as shown in R v Martin
[2001], Michelle’s claim for self-defense does not stand, as the court held that self-
defense requires an immediate threat, and the defendant’s belief must be
reasonable. This indicates that Michelle did not kill out of self-defense, nor in the
‘heat of the moment’, and that there was intent behind the act, making her liable for
Murder under the Common Law System.

Rebuttal: Perceived Threat:

Defens

Sir Edward Coke has stated murder as “when a man of sound memory and of the
age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any county of the realm any reasonable
creature in rerum natura (in the nature of things) under the King's peace.”
List of refrences:

CPS GOV UK. (2019). Homicide: Murder, manslaughter, infanticide and causing or
allowing the death or serious injury of a child or vulnerable adult | The Crown Prosecution
Service. Retrieved May 23, 2024, from https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-
murder-manslaughter-infanticide-and-causing-or-allowing-death-or-serious#

R v Cunningham is only one case and cannot be consudred as there are many other
cases (r v Humphreys, r v thornton)

Chain of causation should be considred in michelle’s favour

Twice in self and she shot twice because it is certain that she is facing her abuser in
the eye so she would feel scared therefore she pulled the trigger twice

Consider the principle of cumulative provocation. These are cases involving a

prolonged period of maltreatment of a person at the hands of another which
culminates in the abuser's killing by his or her victim. Over three long years, Michelle
endured consistent emotional and physical abuse from John, which profoundly
impacted her mental state and judgment. The case of R v. Humphreys [1995]
recognized that prolonged abuse can result in heightened sensitivity to provocation.
Michelle's actions on the night in question were not the result of sudden malice but a
culmination of years of sustained abuse. This cumulative effect of John’s abusive
behavior reduced Michelle’s capacity for self-control. Her sense of fear and
desperation built up over time, causing her to react in a way that someone without
her experiences might not understand. The sustained abuse eroded her mental
resilience, where she said that John ‘had that look in his eyes where he was going to
get violent.’, leading to a moment where she believed that she had no other option
but to defend herself preemptively.

Every insult, every act of violence, and every threat contributed to Michelle’s
deteriorating mental state. It’s crucial to understand that the impact of abuse is not
just immediate but accumulative, intensifying over time and severely affecting the
victim’s physical and emotional stability. Michelle’s perception of danger and her
subsequent reaction were conditioned by the relentless pattern of John's abusive
behavior. This ongoing trauma diminished her ability to respond rationally and
exacerbated her fear to the point where her reaction on January 1st was an
instinctual response to a perceived threat.

In R v. Thornton (No 2) [1996], the court recognized that a history of domestic abuse
could lead to a state where the abused person reacts violently in a situation where
others might not. This case, along with R v. Humphreys, highlights that the law
acknowledges the psychological toll of prolonged abuse. Michelle’s actions were
driven by an accumulated response to the constant threat posed by John. Her
mental state on that night was not of someone acting with cold-blooded intent but of
a person overwhelmed by years of abuse, leading her to believe that immediate,
preemptive action was necessary to protect herself from further harm.

Furthermore, the emotional toll of the abuse Michelle suffered would have left her
feeling isolated, hopeless, and unable to seek help. This psychological imprisonment
often leads victims to see extreme measures as the only escape. The law must
consider this cumulative impact and recognize that Michelle’s prolonged exposure to
abuse significantly impaired her judgment and self-control. Therefore, her actions,
though severe, were a direct consequence of the intense and prolonged provocation
she endured.

Therefore, we ask that you view Michelle’s actions through the lens of cumulative
provocation, understanding that her response was a tragic, yet predictable, outcome
of the relentless abuse she faced. Her actions, driven by a deeply ingrained fear and
desperation, should mitigate her culpability from murder to voluntary manslaughter.
This legal distinction is crucial in delivering justice that acknowledges the complex
realities of domestic abuse.

Feedback:

 Don’t be repetitive.
 Not just factual analysis, but also legal
 How can you relate the law to this situation?
 Find some statutory evidence as well
 Use the definitions and explain the statute