Contributory Qualifying and Non-Qualifying Triggers in the Loss of Control Defence: A Wrong Turn on Sexual Infidelity

@article{Baker2012ContributoryQA,
  title={Contributory Qualifying and Non-Qualifying Triggers in the Loss of Control Defence: A Wrong Turn on Sexual Infidelity},
  author={D. Baker and L. Zhao},
  journal={The Journal of Criminal Law},
  year={2012},
  volume={76},
  pages={254 - 275}
}
This article considers the decision of the Court of Appeal in R v Clinton where Lord Judge CJ speaking for the Court of Appeal held that sexual infidelity could be considered under the third prong of the new partial defence of loss of control, even though it is expressly excluded under the second prong. We argue that sexual infidelity is excluded from being considered under all the prongs of the new defence. It is expressly excluded as a form of qualifying provocation, which means it cannot be… Expand