[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	The Law Commission
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Law Commission >> Partial Defences to Murder (Report) [2004] EWLC 290(appendix d) (06 August 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/other/EWLC/2004/290(appendix_d).html Cite as: [2004] EWLC 290(appendix d)

[New search] [Help]

 


APPENDIX D

PARTIAL DEFENCES AND DEFENDANTS CONVICTED OF MURDER

PART I: AIMS AND METHODS

A. Aims of the research

1. The research has sought to answer a number of questions through the analysis of a sample of cases of defendants convicted of murder. Information about these defendants was extracted from Judges Reports. These are Reports compiled by the trial judge, following the imposition of the mandatory life sentence upon conviction for murder, for use by the Home Secretary in determining the length of the minimum term to be set. The reports vary in length but are usually between two and four pages long. The information recorded and analysed is set out below.
2. The project on Partial Defences to Murder is intended, amongst other things, to indicate whether the defences of diminished responsibility and provocation as they are currently interpreted and applied are operating satisfactorily. One aspect of the project is to ascertain whether female defendants charged with murder in circumstances which suggest a defence ought to be available are excluded from running certain defences, or run them unsuccessfully, either because the scope of the defences is insufficiently wide or because no appropriate defence exists. Conversely, there is concern that Smith (Morgan)^[1] may have led to the provocation defence becoming unduly broad in its application.
3. Information was sought about incidences of various types of murder, the number of co-defendants, the relationship between the defendant and the victim, the circumstances in which murders were committed, the prevalence of murders committed against current or former partners and some personal details, such as age and sex, of both defendants and victims. The minimum terms recommended by the trial judge and subsequently by the Lord Chief Justice were also recorded where that information was available.
4. The research was also intended to shed light on whether female defendants convicted of murder were more likely than male defendants to have run certain defences, whether partial or complete. One of the reasons is to address the perception that provocation is a defence which is used successfully by male defendants whereas female defendants are less likely to have committed murder in a way, or in circumstances, which allows them to raise the defence of provocation. The difficulty is that without a comparable sample of cases resulting in a conviction for manslaughter (see p 3, below) any conclusion can only be tentative. If it were the case that women or men do succeed more often, this would not of itself necessarily mean that there is a gender bias; there may be perfectly good reasons for any differences in the way in which the defences are used.
5. The research also looked at whether there were significant differences in the defences run in cases where the defendant murders a partner as compared to cases where the victim is not a partner.
6. There has been public concern that, in some cases,^[2] a person should not be convicted of murder where he or she has acted to protect his or her property, self or family but has used greater force than was necessary to do so. One way to address this perceived injustice might be to create a partial defence of excessive force in self- defence. The research was intended to give an idea of whether this is a significant issue.
7. In addition, the research was intended to indicate the extent to which multiple defences are raised and the extent to which defences, in particular provocation and self-defence, were left by the trial judge to the jury where they had not been raised by the defence. Under the current law if there is evidence of provocation, the trial judge must leave the issue to the jury, even if he or she is of the view that no reasonable jury could conclude that the provocation was enough to make a reasonable person do as the accused did and even if the defence would prefer that it was not left to the jury.
8. The research also sought to discover the extent to which in cases where there was infidelity provocation was pleaded by both male and female defendants in the context of infidelity.
9. Information relating to the minimum terms recommended by the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice was analysed in order to reveal any apparent differences in the tariff imposed in murders against partners as compared with those against victims who were not partners and whether gender appears to have affected the level of tariff imposed.

B. Methods Used

1. The samples

10. The study involved two samples. The first sample comprises 510 male defendants. Information was extracted from a batch of 432^[3] murder cases tried between 1999 and 2003 which were made available to the Law Commission at the Prison Service's Lifer Review and Recall Section.^[4] They were cases in which Judges Reports had been written but no tariff set by the Home Secretary, pending, and immediately following, the House of Lords ruling in Anderson and Taylor.^[5]
11. The original batch of cases examined at the Lifer Review and Recall Section also included 31 female defendants. However, due to suggestions that there is a gender bias in the way in which the partial defences operate^[6] the Law Commission wanted to examine as large as possible a sample of women's cases and the sample from the original batch was considered too small. Therefore a second sample was compiled comprising 184 female defendants tried for and convicted of murder between the years 1974 and 2003. The difference in time span was not thought to render the two samples incomparable, although it must of course be recognised when evaluating the findings.
12. Neither sample represents the total number of defendants who were convicted of murder during the respective periods.

2. Issues and limitations

a) Interpretation

13. A process of interpretation was involved in determining whether or not defendants fell into particular categories or whether certain factors were present. Furthermore, since several researchers were involved in the data collection, this interpretation is subject to a variety of subjective judgements.^[7]
14. The researchers had to assess what should be regarded as other 'provocative' conduct by the victim in any particular case. The difficulty in determining what should fall into this category is evident in the way that the law on provocation has changed. Where there was conduct which the researcher regarded as constituting a degree of provocation, albeit not in law, this was recorded. One example was incessant talking at night by the victim which prevented the defendant from sleeping.
15. 'Other domestic circumstances' is another category open to interpretation. In addition to those domestic murders which involve a person killing a partner, spouse or former partner or spouse, it includes killing relatives such as parents, grandparents, siblings and children.
16. Deciding what relationship existed between the defendant and his or her victim was not always straightforward. Since friends and acquaintances could often be regarded as both, they comprise one category. In some cases it was difficult to determine whether a victim was a stranger or an acquaintance. One case, for example, involved a man murdering the driver of the taxi he was travelling in. It was, however, generally easier to distinguish these two categories and it did not cause any significant difficulty.

b) Missing data

17. The amount of missing data was relatively low. However, there are some omissions. The age of the defendant was calculated in relation to the date of conviction, which was not always apparent. The age of the victim was sometimes missing. In general, missing data was not a significant problem and, where data was missing, this is indicated within the results.

c) Lack of manslaughter cases and acquittals

18. Although the data is valuable for showing which defences have been run unsuccessfully, the judges' reports provide no data about defences run successfully. The results in this study are still of value for showing whether certain defences tend to be run unsuccessfully by certain types of defendant, but it is not possible to tell which defences are run overall and how often they are successful.

d) Significance

19. The differences between the groups have been analysed to see if they are statistically significant. Where differences occur between groups, it is not necessarily the case that these differences have not occurred by chance. A seemingly large difference between two groups may not be significant if the numbers involved are very small because it is not possible to say with certainty that the results observed have not occurred by chance. Where the results of the significance test show that p > 0.05, this means that there is a 5% chance that the observed difference could have happened by chance. Where p > 0.01, this is reduced to a 1% chance, thus indicating a highly significant difference between the groups.^[8]

3. Confidentiality

20. The data was collected both manually and electronically by Law Commission researchers from judges' reports made available to them at the Lifer Unit of the Prison Service. The reports remained at the Unit and the data collected was taken back to the Law Commission and kept securely. Each case has been given a number for the purposes of this research so that the database is anonymous. Each case has been given a number for the purposes of this research.

4. Acknowledgements

21. We wish to express our gratitude to the Home Office for agreeing to make the Judges Reports available to us. In addition, we would like to convey our thanks to the staff at the Lifer Review and Recall Section for their patience and co-operation and without whose assistance this study could never have been completed.

PART II: DETAILS OF DEFENDANTS AND VICTIMS

A. Age of defendant

1. Male defendants

The age of the defendant was known in 96.7% (493/510) of cases.

- Median age: 30.

- Mean age: 32.

Graph 1: Age of male defendants



2. Female defendants

The age of the defendant was known in 97.3% (179/184) of cases.

- Median age: 32.

- Mean age: 33.

Graph 2: Age of female defendants



B. Number of co-defendants

160 of the 510 male defendants and 78 of the 184 female defendants were charged with one or more co-defendant.

The following pie charts indicate the number of co-defendants each defendant had.

Pie 1: Male defendants: no of co-defendants



Pie 2: Female defendants: no of co-defendants



C. Sex of victim

22. The first and third rows of Table 1 indicate the sex of the victim(s) of each defendant. Therefore where a defendant kills two people of the same sex it counts as one case for the purposes of the first and third rows.
23. The second and fourth rows indicate the sex of the victims. It is possible to tell from these two rows how many victims were involved overall. In contrast to the first and third rows, the information relates to the victim rather than the defendant.

Table 1: Sex of victim(s)

	Male victim(s)	Female victim(s)	Victims of both sexes	Sex of victim(s) unknown	Total
Male defendants	64.9% (331/510)	29.8% (152/510)	2.4% (12/510)	2.4% (12/510)	100% (510/510)
Total no of victims (male Ds)	61.8% (283/458)	36.2% (166/458)	N/A	2% (9/458)	100% (458/458)
Female defendants	65.8% (121/184)	32.6% (60/184)	1.6% (3/184)	0% (0/184)	100% (184/184)
Total no of victims (female Ds)	64.4% (119/177)	32.8% (58/177)	N/A	0% (0/177)	100% (177/177)

D. Age of victim

1. Victims of male defendants

The age of 42.1% (232/551) of victims was known.

- Median age: 32.

- Mean age: 35.

- 3% (7/232) were children under a year old.

- 6.5% (15/232) were children aged between one year and 17 years inclusive.

- 9.1% (21/232) were over 60, the eldest being 91.

It must be borne in mind that the proportion of cases in which the age of the victim was apparent is under half and, given the uneven distribution across the ages, the true results are not known.

2. Victims of female defendants

The age of 69.5% (123/177) of victims was known.

- Median age: 41.

- Mean age: 43.

- 3.25%(4/123) were children under a year old.

- 9.76%(12/123) were children aged between one year and 17 years inclusive.

- 28.5% (35/123) were aged 60 or over, the eldest being 90.

Graph 3: Male defendants: age of victim(s)



Graph 4: Female defendants: age of victim(s)



Relationship between defendant and victim

Pie 3: Male defendants: relationship with victim



Pie 4: Female defendants: relationship with victim



PART III: USE OF PARTIAL DEFENCES AND SELF-DEFENCE

This section focuses principally on the extent to which the defences of diminished responsibility, provocation and self-defence were used by the defendants in the samples. Table 2 provides some information relating to the use of other defences, and further details can be found in Tables 1A and 2A in the Appendix.

A. Comparing the two samples

This section compares the two samples as a whole.

1. Defences run

Table 2 indicates which defences were run by each defendant and which were left by the judge to the jury without having been run by the defendant. The percentages given do not amount to 100% because defendants may have run more than one defence.^[9] Two of the male defendants had a mixture of guilty and not guilty pleas and in each case no defence was apparent. They are included within the guilty pleas.

Table 2: Defences run

	Male defendants: defences run	M: Left by judge to jury	Female defendants: defences run	F: Left by judge to jury
Diminished Responsibility	8.2% (42/510)	N/A	13.6% (25/184)	N/A
Provocation	18.4% (94/510)	3.9% (20/510)	17.9% (33/184)	8.2% (15/184)
Self-defence	14.3% (73/510)	0.4% (2/510)	10.3% (19/184)	1.6% (3/184)
Insanity	0.4% (2/510)	N/A	0% (0/184)	N/A
Lack of intent	25% (128/510)	0.8% (4/510)	28.8% (53/184)	1.1% (2/184)
Other	50% (255/510)	0% (0/139)	59.8% (110/184)	0% (0/139)
No defence apparent	4.3% (22/510)	N/A	3.8% (7/184)	N/A
Pleaded guilty	13.1% (67/510)	N/A	8.2% (15/184)	N/A

In terms of defences run, diminished responsibility is the only area where there is a significant difference between male and female defendants. 13.6% (25/184) of female defendants and 8.2% (42/510) of male defendants ran the defence, and the difference between the groups is highly significant.^[10] These cases include those where diminished responsibility was either run alone or with other defences.

The differences between the groups in relation to provocation and self-defence are not significant. 17.9% (33/184) of female defendants and 18.4% (94/510) of male defendants pleaded provocation^[11] and 10.3% (19/184) of female defendants and 14.3% (73/510) of male defendants ran self-defence.^[12]

The difference in the proportion of male and female defendants who pleaded guilty is not significant.^[13]

2. Self-defence: degree of force in issue-

The degree of force used was in issue^[14] in respect of 38.4% (28/73) of male defendants and 21.1% (4/19) of female defendants who ran self-defence.

The difference between the male and female defendants is not statistically significant^[15] but the proportion of cases in which the degree of force used was in issue is in itself substantial.

B. Defendants who murdered partners

This section relates to defendants who murdered a spouse, partner or former partner, all of whom will be referred to as 'partners'. More detail about defences run by defendants in various types of relationship (including defences other than diminished responsibility, provocation and self-defence) can be found in Tables A1 and A2 in the Appendix.

- 19.2% (98/510) of male defendants murdered partners.

- 34.8% (64/184) of all female defendants murdered partners.

- 5.1% (5/98) of the male defendants who killed partners killed male partners.

- 4.7% (3/64) of the female defendants who killed partners killed female partners.

Female defendants were more likely to have murdered a partner than male defendants.^[16] This does not mean that men are more at risk from partners than women because the actual numbers involved are smaller in respect of women. Furthermore, the sample of female defendants stretches over a wider time span.^[17]

Defences run may have been run in conjunction with other defences. More detail about which defences were run alone and which were combined with other defences can be found in the Appendix at pp 3–4.

1. Male defendants

- 17.3% (17/98) ran diminished responsibility.

- 31.6% (31/98) ran provocation.

- 6.1% (6/98) ran self-defence.

- 44.9% (44/98) ran a single defence.

- 22.4% (22/98) ran two defences.

- 5.1% (5/98) ran three defences.

- 2% (2/98) ran four defences.

- 20.4% (20/98) pleaded guilty.

- In 4.1% (4/98) of cases the defence was not clear.

2. Female defendants

- 7.8% (5/64) ran diminished responsibility.

- 25% (16/64) ran provocation.

- 12.5% (8/64) ran self-defence.

- 62.5% (40/64) ran a single defence.

- 17.2% (11/64) ran two defences.

- 9.4% (6/64) ran three defences.

- 1.6% (1/64) ran four defences.

- 4.7% (3/64) pleaded guilty.

- In 3.1% (2/64) of cases the defence was not clear.

3. Comparing male and female defendants who murdered partners

a) Defences run

Findings in respect of defendants who murdered partners differed from those that emerged from an analysis of the samples as a whole. Self-defence and, in particular self-defence run alongside provocation, was run by significantly more female than male defendants. 17.2% (11/64) of female defendants and 6.1% (6/98) of male defendants who murdered partners pleaded self-defence.^[18] 12.5% (8/64) of female defendants and 6.1% (6/98) of male defendants who murdered partners ran self-defence along with provocation.^[19] In each of these cases, other defences may have been run in addition.

There were no significant differences between male and female defendants in respect of diminished responsibility^[20] and provocation.^[21] Similarly no significant differences emerged in respect of defendants who combined diminished responsibility and provocation,^[22] or those who combined self-defence and diminished responsibility.^[23]

b) Multiple defences

Female defendants were more likely than their male counterparts to run a single defence.^[24] However, there were no significant differences between the samples in terms of running more than one defence.^[25]

c) Plea

Male defendants were more likely than female defendants to plead guilty to murdering a partner.^[26]

C. Defendants whose victim(s) was not a partner

This section discusses defendants whose victim was not a partner and relates, as the previous section did, principally to the defences of diminished responsibility, provocation and self-defence. Tables A1 and A2 in the Appendix provide greater detail about the types of defences run by defendants in different types of relationship.

- 73.9% (377/510) of male defendants murdered victims who were not partners.

- 64.7% (119/184) of all female defendants murdered non-partners.^[27]

1. Male defendants

- 6.6% (25/377) ran diminished responsibility

- 15.9% (60/377) ran provocation

- 16.4% (62/377) ran self-defence

- 58.9% (222/377) ran a single defence

- 15.9% (60/377) ran two defences

- 6.4% (24/377) ran three defences

- 2.1% (8/377) ran four defences

- 12.2% (46/377) pleaded guilty.

- In 4.5% (17/377) of cases the defence was not clear.

2. Female defendants

- 16.9% (20/119) ran diminished responsibility

- 14.4% (20/119) ran provocation

- 6.8% (8/119) ran self-defence

- 56.8% (67/119) ran a single defence

- 17.8% (21/119) ran two defences

- 10.2% (12/119) ran three defences

- 1.7% (2/119) ran four defences

- 10.2% (12/119) pleaded guilty.

- In 4.2% (5/119) of cases the defence was not clear.

3. Comparing those whose victim was a partner with those whose victim was not a partner

a) Defences run

Strong differences emerged in terms of the defences run by male defendants who murdered partners as compared to those whose victims were not partners. Male defendants who murdered partners were more likely to run diminished responsibility,^[28] provocation^[29] and self-defence^[30] than those who murdered non-partners.

Those who murdered partners were also more likely to run combinations of these three defences. 2.1% (8/377) of male defendants who murdered non-partners combined diminished responsibility with provocation, as compared to 9.2% (9/98) of those who murdered partners.^[31] 1.1% (4/377) combined provocation with self-defence, in comparison with 6.1% (6/98) of male defendants who murdered partners. ^[32]

The only area where there was no significant difference between the two groups is in respect of self-defence and diminished responsibility. 1.6% (6/377) of male defendants who murdered non-partners and 1%(1/98) of those who murdered partners combined self-defence and diminished responsibility.^[33]

A different pattern was evident in respect of female defendants. Whether or not they murdered partners had little effect on the extent to which diminished responsibility-or provocation were run.^[34] However, female defendants who murdered partners were more likely than those who murdered non-partners to run the defence of self-defence.^[35]

They were also more likely to combine provocation and self-defence and 7.2% (11/64) of female defendants who murdered partners and 5.9% (7/119) who murdered non-partners did so.^[36] Furthermore, 9.4% (6/64) who murdered partners compared with to 2.5% (3/119) who murdered non-partners combined diminished responsibility with provocation, and this difference was significant.^[37] No significant difference was apparent in respect of the small number of defendants who combined self-defence and diminished responsibility.^[38]

b) Multiple defences

In terms of the numbers of defences run in conjunction with one another, the only difference between male defendants who murdered partners and those who murdered non-partners related to the running of a single defence, with those who murdered partners being less likely to run a single defence. 58.9% (222/377) of those whose victims who were not partners as compared to 44.9% (44/98) of those who murdered partners ran a single defence.^[39]

Whether or not the victim was a partner made no significant difference to the number of defences run by female defendants.^[40]

c) Plea

Again, differences in relation to plea between defendants who had murdered partners and those who murdered victims who were not partners arose only in respect of male defendants, who were more likely to plead guilty if they had murdered a partner.^[41] No such difference was found in respect of female defendants.^[42]

D. Defendants who murdered in a domestic context

In this section those defendants who were deemed to have committed murder 'in a domestic context'^[43] are considered. In addition to considering this group as a whole, additional factors present at the time of the murder, namely violence from the victim, provocative behaviour and infidelity, are taken into consideration. This research indicates that women who commit murder are more likely to do so in a domestic setting than men. 42.9% (79/184) of female defendants and 28.6% (146/510) of male defendants fell within this definition.^[44]

61.6% (90/146) of male defendants who murdered in a domestic context murdered a spouse, a partner or a former partner (as before, this group will be referred to collectively as 'partners') and 19.2% (28/146) murdered relatives. 75.9% (60/79) of the female defendants in this group murdered partners^[45] and 20.3% (16/79) murdered relatives. Table 3A in the Appendix gives more detail about the types of relationships the defendants in this category had with their victim(s).

Amongst these defendants, the only area of difference between male and female defendants related to self-defence. 24.1% (19/79) of female defendants and 9.6% (14/146) of male defendants ran self-defence.^[46] This finding is similar to the pattern which emerged in relation to defendants who murdered partners, where self-defence, and self-defence coupled with provocation, were the only areas of difference between the groups, with female defendants being more likely to have run these defences. This is perhaps to be expected given that 75.9% (60/79) of female defendants who committed domestic murder did so against partners, indicating a significant overlap amongst those who fall within each category.

There was no significant difference between the proportion of female defendants who ran diminished responsibility, which was 15.2% (12/79), and that of male defendants, which was 15.8% (23/146).^[47] Higher numbers pleaded provocation but the respective proportion of defendants doing so for each group did not differ significantly; 41.8% (33/79) of female defendants and 34.2% (50/146) of male defendants who committed domestic murder ran provocation as a defence.^[48] In each of these cases the defendants may have run other defences in addition.

There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of combinations of the three defences, although the numbers involved are relatively small which makes it more difficult to determine trends. 13.9% (11/79) of female defendants and 7.5% (11/184) of male defendants ran diminished responsibility and provocation,^[49] 13.9% (11/79) of female defendants and 6.8% (10/146) of male defendants ran self-defence and provocation,^[50] and 3.8% (3/79) of female defendants and 1.4% (2/146) diminished responsibility and provocation.^[51] In each case additional defences may have been run.

1. Violence from victim

The was little evidence in either sample of any violence^[52] from the victim before the murder. The absence of any comment in the judges' report about the presence of violence does not, however, necessarily mean that none occurred.

The study found that, amongst the cases of domestic murder 5.1% (4/79) of female defendants had experienced violence from the victim before the murder and 2.7% (4/146) of male defendants had done so.^[53]

The numbers involved are therefore too small to derive any meaningful conclusion from a comparison of the defences run in these cases.a) Male defendants

One of these four cases also involved infidelity by the victim and is indicated below by*. Defences run in these four cases are as follows:

- 1 ran provocation*

- 1 ran diminished responsibility, provocation and lack of intent

- 2 ran provocation and lack of intent.

As is clear, provocation was run in each case.

b) Female defendants

One of these cases also involved infidelity by the victim and is indicated below by*. In addition, two involved other provocative conduct and are indicated by†. Defences run in these four cases are as follows:

- 2 ran diminished responsibility and provocation*

- 2 ran provocation, self-defence and lack of intent†

As with the male defendants provocation was run in each case.

2. Infidelity

Male defendants who committed murder in a domestic context were more likely than female defendants to have been acting in response to infidelity on the part of the victim. 13% (19/146) of male defendants as compared to 3.8% (3/79) of female defendants fell into this category.^[54]

a) Male defendants

Three of the 19 cases also involved other 'provocative' conduct and are indicated below by*. Defences run in these 19 cases are as follows:

- 7 ran provocation alone

- 1 ran diminished responsibility alone

- 1 ran diminished responsibility and provocation*

- 1 ran diminished responsibility; provocation was left to the jury

- 1 ran diminished responsibility and provocation and lack of intent*

- 2 ran provocation and lack of intent

- 1 ran provocation and an "other" defence

- 1 ran lack of intent and an "other" defence

- 1 ran lack of intent alone

Three of the 19 pleaded guilty. One of these involved other "provocative conduct ".*

Therefore provocation was run or put to the jury in 68.4% (13/19) of cases involving a male defendant where the victim has been unfaithful.

b) Female defendants

One of the three cases also involved violence from the victim and is indicated below by*. The following defences were run in these three cases :

- 1 ran provocation

- 1 ran an "other" defence

- 1 ran diminished responsibility and provocation*

Therefore provocation was run in two of the three cases where the victim had been unfaithful.

3. Other 'provocative' conduct

There was no difference between the two groups in relation to other 'provocative' behaviour. 15.2% (12/79) of female defendants and 10.3% (15/146) of male defendants committed murder in response to some sort of provocative behaviour but this difference is not statistically significant.^[55]

a) Male defendants

Defences run in these 15 cases are as follows:

- 1 ran provocation alone

- 1 ran provocation and self-defence

- 1 ran diminished responsibility, provocation and self-defence*

- 1 ran diminished responsibility, provocation, self-defence and lack of intent

- 1 ran an "other" defence; provocation was left to the jury

- 2 ran provocation and lack of intent

- 1 ran provocation and an "other" defence

- 1 ran self-defence and lack of intent

- 2 ran an "other" defences

Three of the 15 pleaded guilty.

No defence was apparent in one case.

Therefore provocation was run or put to the jury in 53.3% (8/15) of cases involving a male defendant where there has been other provocative conduct by the victim. Without the defendants who pleaded guilty the proportion increases to 66.7% (8/12).

It might have been expected that provocation would have necessarily been run where there was provocative conduct. However, determining what constitutes provocative conduct is something of a subjective exercise^[56] and it may be that in some cases there was behaviour which appeared from the report to be provocative but, in the trial, was not deemed so by the defence or the judge.

b) Female defendants

Two of the 12 cases also involved violence from the victim and are indicated below by†. Defences run in these 12 cases are as follows:

- 3 ran provocation alone

- 2 ran provocation, self-defence and lack of intent†

- 1 ran diminished responsibility and provocation

- 1 ran an "other" defence; provocation was left to the jury.

- 1 ran an "other" defence; self-defence and provocation were left to the jury.

- 1 ran diminished responsibility, provocation and lack of intent; self-defence was left to the jury

- 1 ran diminished responsibility, provocation and lack of intent

- 1 ran diminished responsibility and lack of intent; provocation was left to the jury

One of these defendants pleaded guilty.

As would perhaps be expected, provocation was either run or left to the jury in 100% (12/12) of these cases.

E. Defendants who murdered in victim's home

54.3% (100/184) of female defendants compared to 22.2% (113/510) of male defendants committed murder in the victim's own home. The difference between these two proportions is extremely significant,^[57] and thus it can be said that women who commit murder are more likely than men to do so in the home of their victim. This category may include cases where the defendant was also in his or her own home, if both the defendant and the victim shared a home.

There were, however, no significant differences in terms of the defences run in these cases. 12% (12/100) of the female defendants in this category ran diminished responsibility and 13.3% (15/113) of the male defendants did so.^[58] 17% (17/100) of female defendants and 21.1% (24/113) of male defendants ran provocation.^[59] Self-defence was run by 8% (8/100) of female defendants and 10.6% (12/113) of male defendants.^[60]

F. Conclusion

The results set out in Part III show that women convicted of murder are more likely than their male counterparts to have committed the offence in a domestic setting, more likely to have killed a partner and more likely to have carried out the offence in the home of the victim. This does not mean that partners and relatives are more at risk from women than from men because, in each category, the actual numbers of male defendants who commit such murders are higher. It is the way in which the type of murder is distributed across each sex that differs.

Male defendants who commit murder in a domestic context are more likely than female defendants to have done so in response to infidelity.

The results also suggest that women convicted of murdering a partner are more likely than men to run self-defence or self-defence coupled with provocation. A similar finding emerged in respect of female defendants who commit murder 'in a domestic context', who also appear to be more likely to run self-defence than their male counterparts. The results indicate that men who murder partners are more likely to run diminished responsibility, provocation and self-defence than those who murder victims who are not partners. No such finding emerged in respect of women.

According to the research, women who murder partners are more likely than men to run a single defence. Male defendants who murder a partner are less likely than male defendants whose victim was not a partner to run a single defence, whereas for women no such difference occurred.

Without information relating to manslaughter cases, the extent to which wider conclusions can be drawn is limited.

PART IV: MINIMUM TERMS

Table 3 shows the mean tariffs imposed by the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice^[61] on male and female defendants respectively.^[62] Table 4 breaks this information down to show the level minimum term imposed where the murder is of a partner. The figure in brackets shows the total number of defendants in respect of whom information on minimum term was available.

Table 3: Minimum Term on life sentence

	Minimum Term set by trial judge (in years)	Minimum Term set by LCJ (in years)
Male defendants	14.9 (483)	14.8 (308)
Female defendants	12.9 (166)	12.7 (146)

Table 4: Minimum Terms in respect of male and female defendants

	Mean minimum term set by trial judge (in years)	Mean minimum term set by LCJ (in years)
Male defendants who kill partners	13.9 (93)	13.7 (54)
Female defendants who kill partners	12.6 (55)	12.7 (49)
Male defendants where victim not partner	15.1 (356)	15.1 (232)
Female defendants where victim not partner	13 (110)	12.7 (97)

A. Differences in minimum term according to whether victim a partner

There is a highly significant difference between the mean minimum term recommended by the trial judge in respect of male and female defendants,^[63] with female defendants receiving a lower minimum term than male defendants. This does not necessarily indicate an inherent unfairness in the process since Table 3 does not supply details about the facts in individual cases upon which the decisions were made.

B. Differences in minimum term according to whether victim a partner

1. Male defendants

In terms of the minimum term recommended by the trial judge, the difference between the mean minimum term recommended for male defendants who murder partners and that recommended for those who murder people who are not partners is highly significant.^[64] Judges recommend a significantly lower minimum term where male defendants have murdered partners or ex-partners rather than other types of victim.

2. Female defendants: difference in tariff according to whether victim a partner

A different result is produced in respect of female defendants. Whether or not the victim is a partner does not affect the level of tariff imposed by the trial judge to any significant extent.^[65]

C. Differences in minimum term between male and female defendants

1. Where victim is a partner

The tariffs set by the trial judge in respect of female defendants who murder partners are significantly lower than those imposed on male defendants who do so.^[66] However, these results must be looked at in light of the results set out in the previous section which show that judges set lower tariffs in respect of female defendants regardless of the type of victim.

2. Where victim is not a partner

Similarly, where the victim is not a partner female defendants receive lower tariffs than male defendants.^[67]

D. Conclusion

The differences between men and women are present regardless of the type of victim involved. The clearest trend which emerges is that men who murder victims who are not their partners or former partners are likely to receive higher recommended minimum terms than those who murder partners. There is an overall picture of lower minimum terms being recommended for female defendants, while female defendants who murder victims who are not partners are not likely to receive a significantly different recommended minimum term from those who murder partners.

PART V: METHODS OF KILLING

Table 5: Methods of killing

	Male defendants	Female defendants
Knife	28.8% (147/510)	37.5% (69/184)
Punching/kicking	6.7% (34/510)	9.2% (17/184)
Gun	10.8% (55/510)	5.4% (10/184)
Strangulation	7.5% (38/510)	7.6% (14/184)
Poison	0.2% (1/510)	1.1% (2/184)
Heavy object	1.4% (7/510)	8.2% (15/184)
Hammer	5.1% (26/510)	1.6% (3/184)
Glassing	0.2% (1/510)	0% (0/184)
Arson	1.8% (9/510)	0% (0/184)
Suffocation	0.8% (4/510)	6% (11/184)
Run over	0.4% (2/510)	0% (0/184)
Drowning/drowning & strangulation	0.6% (3/510)	1.6% (3/184)
Shaking	0.2% (1/510)	0.5% (1/184)
Axe	0.2% (1/510)	1.1% (2/184)
Knife & hammer/heavy object	1% (5/510)	3.8% (7/184)
Strangulation & hammer/heavy object	0.4% (2/510)	1.1% (2/184)
Knife & strangulation	0.4% (2/510)	0% (0/184)
Gun & heavy object/hammer	0.2% (1/510)	0% (0/184)
Knife & punching/kicking	1.6% (8/510)	2.7% (5/184)
Gun & strangulation	0.4% (2/510)	0% (0/184)
Strangulation & punching/kicking	0.2% (1/510)	2.2% (4/184)
Hammer & punching/kicking	0.2% (1/510)	0% (0/184)
Strangulation & suffocation	0% (0/510)	0.5% (1/184)
Other	12.2% (62/510)	8.2% (15/184)
Missing	25.7% (131/510)	1.6% (3/184)

APPENDIX

1. Defences run by defendants in various types of relationships

Tables 1A and 2A show defences run by male and defendants, respectively, in various types of relationship.

The number in brackets out of which the proportion is calculated relates to the number of defendants in that particular type of relationship. For example, 27 of the male defendants were convicted of murdering their wives so the proportions in the first row are calculated using 27 as the total.

Table 1A: Defences run by male defendants in various types of relationships

	Dimin Respons.	Provo-cation	Self-defence	Insanity	Lack of intent	Other defence	Guilty plea
Married	18.5% (5/27)	25.9% (7/27)	0% (0/27)	0% (0/27)	14.8% (4/27)	25.9% (7/27)	18.5% (5/27)
Engaged	0% (0/2)	50% (1/2)	0% (0/2)	0% (0/2)	0% (0/2)	0% (0/2)	50% (1/2)
In a relationship	6.8% (3/44)	6.8% (14/44)	11.1% (3/44)	0% (0/44)	38.6% (17/44)	31.8% (14/44)	20.5% (9/44)
Former partner/spouse	36% (9/25)	36% (9/25)	12% (3/25)	0% (0/25)	44% (11/25)	32% (8/25)	20% (5/25)
Related	13.3% (4/30)	13.3% (4/30)	6.7% (2/30)	3.3% (1/30)	36.7% (11/30)	33.3% (10/30)	13.3% (4/30)
Friends/ acquaintances	5.3% (9/169)	18.3% (31/169	17.8% (30/169)	0% (0/169)	29% (49/169)	58% (98/169)	11.2% (19/169)
Neighbours	5.9% (1/17)	17.6% (3/17)	23.5% (4/17)	0% (0/17)	41.2% (7/17)	35.3% (6/17)	17.6% (3/17)
Colleagues	0% (0/2)	50% (1/2)	50% (1/2)	0% (0/2)	0% (0/2)	0% (0/2)	50% (1/2)
Strangers	7.9% (7/89)	14.6% (13/89)	19.1% (17/89)	0% (0/89)	22.5% (20/89)	48.3% (43/89)	13.5% (12/89)
Other	5.7% (4/70)	11.4% (8/70)	11.4% (8/70)	0% (0/70)	28.6% (20/70)	64.2% (45/70)	10% (7/70)
Missing	0% (0/35)	8.6% (3/35)	14.3% (5/35)	2.9% (1/35)	20% (7/35)	68.6% (24/35)	2.9% (1/35)
Total	42	94	73	2	128	255	68

Table 2A: Defences run by female defendants in various types of relationships

	Dimin Respons	Provo-cation	Self-defence	Insanity	Lack of intent	Other defence	Guilty plea
Married	3.5% (1/29)	3.4% (1/29)	3.4% (1/29)	0% (0/29)	27.6% (8/29)	69% (20/29)	6.9% (2/29)
In a relationship	16.7% (4/24)	37.5% (9/24)	25% (6/24)	0% (0/24)	20.8% (5/24)	45.8% (11/24)	4.2% (1/24)
Former partner/spouse	18.2% (2/11)	54.5% (6/11)	36.4% (4/11)	0% (0/11)	45.5% (5/11)	45.5% (5/11)	0% (0/11)
Related	20.8% (5/24)	12.5% (3/24)	4.2% (1/24)	0% (0/24)	20.8% (5/24)	62.5% (15/24)	4.2% (1/24)
Friends/ acquaintances	26.1% (12/46)	26.1% (12/46)	8.7% (4/46)	0% (0/46)	41.3% (19/46)	60.9% (28/46)	4.3% (2/46)
Neighbours	0% (0/9)	22.2% (2/9)	22.2% (2/9)	0% (0/9)	66.7% (6/9)	44.5% (4/9)	11.1% (1/9)
Strangers	14.3% (1/7)	0% (0/7)	14.3% (1/7)	0% (0/7)	14.3% (1/7)	57.1% (4/7)	14.3% (1/7)
Other	6.5% (2/32)	0% (0/32)	0% (0/32)	0% (0/32)	12.9% (4/32)	71% (22/32)	22.6% (7/32)
Missing	0% (0/1)	0% (0/1)	0% (0/1)	0% (0/1)	0% (0/1)	100% (1/1)	0% (0/1)
Total	27	33	19	0	53	110	15

3. Defendants who murdered partners: whether defence run alone or combined

1. Male defendants who murdered partners

19.2% (98/510) of male defendants murdered partners. Twenty pleaded guilty, and in four cases the defence was not clear.

The following defences were run by the remaining defendants:

Single defences

- 7 ran diminished responsibility alone

- 12 ran provocation alone

- 5 ran lack of intent alone

- 17 ran "other" defence(s)

Multiple defences

- 3 ran diminished responsibility and provocation

- 1 ran diminished responsibility and self-defence; provocation was left to the jury

- 1 ran diminished responsibility; provocation was left to the jury

- 3 ran diminished responsibility, provocation and lack of intent

- 1 ran provocation, self-defence, lack of intent and "other" defence(s)

- 1 ran diminished responsibility, provocation, lack of intent and "other" defence(s)

- 1 ran provocation, self-defence and lack of intent

- 6 ran provocation and lack of intent

- 2 ran lack of intent; provocation was left to the jury

- 1 ran lack of intent and "other" defence(s); provocation was left to the jury

- 1 ran lack of intent and "other" defence(s); provocation and self-defence were left to the jury

- 2 ran provocation and self-defence

- 5 ran lack of intent and "other" defence(s)

- 2 ran provocation and "other" defence(s)

- 1 ran self-defence and lack of intent

- 1 ran diminished responsibility, lack of intent and "other" defence(s)

- 1 case involved lack of intent being left to the jury

2. Female defendants who murdered partners

34.8% (64/184) of female defendants murdered partners. Three pleaded guilty, and in two cases the defence was not clear.

The following defences were run by the remaining defendants:

Single defences

- 3 ran provocation alone

- 2 ran self-defence alone

- 6 ran lack of intent alone

- 28 ran "other" defence(s)

Multiple defences

- 5 ran lack of intent and "other" defence(s)*

- 2 ran provocation and self-defence

- 3 ran diminished responsibility and provocation

- 5 ran provocation, self-defence and lack of intent

- 1 ran diminished responsibility, provocation and lack of intent

- 1 ran provocation self-defence, lack of intent and "other" defence(s)

- 1 ran self-defence; provocation was left to the jury

- 1 ran lack of intent; provocation was left to the jury

- 3 ran an "other" defence; provocation was left to the jury

- 1 ran an "other" defence; provocation and self-defence were left to the jury

- 1 ran lack of intent and "other" defence(s); provocation was left to the jury

- 1 ran lack of intent and "other" defence(s); self-defence was left to the jury

- 1 ran diminished responsibility, provocation and lack of intent; self-defence was left to the jury

- 1 ran diminished responsibility, self-defence and "other" defence(s); provocation was left to the jury

4. Relationship of defendant and victim in cases of domestic murder

Table 3A shows the relationship of the defendant with his or her victim in cases where the murder was committed in a domestic context.

Table 3A: Relationship of defendant and victim in cases of domestic murder

	Proportion of male defendants	Proportion of female defendants
Married	18.5% (27/146)	36.7% (29/79)
Engaged	1.4% (2/146)	0% (0/79)
In a relationship	28.1% (41/146)	29.1% (23/79)
Former partner/spouse	13.7% (20/146)	10.1% (8/79)
Related	19.2% (28/146)	20.3% (16/79)
Friends/ Acquaintances	12.3% (18/146)	2.5% (2/79)
Neighbours	0.7% (1/146)	0% (0/79)
Colleagues	0% (0/146)	0% (0/79)
Strangers	1.4% (2/146)	0% (0/79)
Other	4.8% (7/146)	1.3% (1/79)
Missing	0% (0/146)	0% (0/79)

Ý
Ü   Þ