Dr Laurène Soubise tackles loss of control defence in Law Commission review of homicide

Dr Soubise, alongside colleagues from the Universities of Liverpool and Birmingham, have responded to the Law Commission's call for evidence as part of their review of the law on homicide.

The Ministry of Justice has asked the Law Commission to revisit homicide law, and the Law Commission agreed to reconsider and update their 2006 recommendations.  

A “rickety structure set upon shaky foundations”  

In 2006, the Law Commission described the law governing homicide as a “rickety structure set upon shaky foundations”. Since then, new problems and possible limitations with the existing law have emerged, including the extent to which the law reflects a modern understanding of the effects of domestic abuse, for example how defences to homicide operate where a victim of abuse kills their abuser.

One area under scrutiny is the loss of control defence. This partial defence allows a murder charge to be reduced to manslaughter when someone kills while overwhelmed by certain qualifying triggers, such as fear of serious violence or exceptionally serious provocation.

Although reformed in 2009 to improve fairness, the defence has long been criticised for reflecting assumptions about human behaviour that do not align with the experiences of many victims of abuse.

A systematic analysis

In October 2025, Dr Soubise and her partners Professor Anna Carline, Dr Sarah Singh (both from the University of Liverpool) and Matthew Gibson (University of Birmingham) submitted evidence to the Law Commission, based on findings from an ongoing, large-scale project examining the loss of control defence. Their research involves a systematic analysis of every Court of Appeal judgment on loss of control since the defence’s inception. This review allows the team to track how the defence has been interpreted over time, and where it may be failing those it was meant to protect.

Recommendations

Dr Soubise and her partners called for the first requirement of the loss of control defence – that the defendant lost his/her self-control – to be removed. Their research shows that this requirement has become an overly dominant and inconsistent hurdle, interpreted in ways that privilege visible, explosive anger. Such a model disproportionately disadvantages women, particularly victims of domestic abuse, whose responses do not manifest as stereotypical ‘red mist’ behaviour. Keeping this requirement, the team argues, prevents justice for many abused women.

They also call for further reform to ensure the qualifying triggers – fear of violence, or actions or words of an exceptionally serious nature – are interpreted in ways that genuinely reflect the realities of domestic abuse and coercive control.

Their study shows that:

• the fear trigger is predominantly used by male defendants, sometimes in contexts they helped to create;
• the anger trigger continues to appear in cases involving sexual infidelity, despite its statutory exclusion;
• abused women struggle to access either trigger because courts frequently rely on narrow interpretations of what constitutes fear, threat or emotionally overwhelming circumstances; and
• trauma responses such as memory loss or lack of emotion are often misread as undermining credibility.

These findings suggest that the defence is currently more accessible to violent male defendants than to those, particularly women, acting in the context of abuse.

However, the team emphasises that legislative reform alone is not sufficient. Their evidence highlights the crucial role of evidential rules, courtroom practices, judicial expectations about emotional expression, and interpretive tendencies that shape how the law is applied. True change requires addressing these underlying structures, not simply amending legislative wording.

Finally, they also asked the Law Commission to exercise caution in reform proposals to avoid unintended consequences, particularly the misuse of the defence by male defendants attempting to justify lethal violence in contexts far removed from abuse.

Dr Soubise says:

 Too often, the law fails to recognise the realities of domestic abuse – how fear and coercive control shape people’s responses. Reform must address not only the wording of the law, but also the assumptions and practices that determine how it is applied.

Dr Soubise’s thorough evidence on these issues is a prime example of how School of Law academics produce research that has a real-world impact on the law relating to homicide offences.

• Dr Soubise is a member of the Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, the Feminist Research Into Violence & Abuse Network and the Legal Professions Research Group, and can be found on Bluesky here and LinkedIn here.