Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

R v Clinton - 2012

387 words (2 pages) Case Summary

1st Oct 2021 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Legal Case Summary

R v Clinton [2012] 2 All ER 947; [2012] 1 Cr App R 26; [2012] 3 WLR 515; [2012] Crim LR 539; [2013] QB 1; [2012] EWCA Crim 2

MURDER, DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY, LOSS OF CONTROL, DEFENCE, SEXUAL INFIDELITY

Facts

In the first case, Clinton killed his wife in their family home because of her sexual infidelity. He was convicted of murder and arson by the Crown Court. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with minimum specified term of 26 years. The verdict was returned by the jury after the defence considering diminished responsibility. The judge ruled that there was insufficient evidence of loss of control for this issue to be considered by the jury. Clinton appealed.

In the second case, Parker killed his wife in their family home because of her sexual infidelity. The jury at the Crown Court rejected the loss of control defence and convicted him of murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum specified term of 17 years.

In the third case, Evans killed his wife in their family home because of her sexual infidelity. The jury at the Crown Court rejected the loss of control defence and convicted him of murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum specified term of 11 years.

Issue

Is the prohibition on sexual infidelity as a qualifying trigger to the defence of loss of control imposed by s.55(6)(c) Coroners and Justice Act 2009 a valid one?

Decision/Outcome

(1) If sexual infidelity was the only potential trigger to the harmful act, s.55(6)(c) Coroners and Justice Act 2009 has to be applied.

(2) If there are other circumstances though, in light of ss. 54(1)(c)and 54(3), sexual infidelity should be taken into account where it is integral to the facts as a whole, being one of the factors which caused the defendant to lose control.

Clinton’s appeal was allowed because the judge misdirected herself as to the relevance of infidelity and wrongly did not leave the matter to the jury.

Parker’s and Evan’s appeals were dismissed because their loss of control defences were put to the jury.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles