sonbahis girişsonbahissonbahis güncelvaycasino girişpusulabet girişpusulabet girişpusulabetpusulabetvaycasinoholiganbetvaycasino girişholiganbetvaycasinovaycasino girişvaycasinomatbet girişgameofbetvdcasinomatbetgrandpashabetgrandpashabetmatbet girişmatbetエクスネスmatbetmatbet girişmatbetpusulabetjojobetMeritbetmeritbet girişMeritbetVaycasinoBetasusBetkolikMeritbetmeritbetMeritbet girişMeritbetgalabetenobahis girişenbetenbet girişceltabetceltabet girişcasiveracasivera girişcasivalcasival girişcasinoroyalcasinoroyal girişbovbetbovbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişkralbet girişhilbethilbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişgalabetgalabet girişenobahisenobahis girişenbetenbet girişceltabetceltabet girişcasiveracasivera girişcasivalcasival girişcasinoroyal girişcasinoroyalbovbetbovbet girişgobahisgobahis girişhilbethilbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişgobahisgobahis girişgalabetgalabet girişcasivalcasival girişenbetenbet girişceltabetceltabet girişcasinoroyalcasinoroyal girişcasiveracasivera girişbovbetbovbet girişkralbet girişenobahisenobahis girişenobahisenobahis girişkralbetkralbet girişbovbetbovbet girişcasiveracasivera girişcasinoroyalcasinoroyalceltabetceltabet girişenbetenbet girişcasivalcasival girişgalabetgalabet girişgobahisgobahis girişkulisbetkulisbet girişhilbethilbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişgiftcardmall/mygifthiltonbethiltonbet girişhilbethilbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişgobahisgobahis girişgalabetgalabet girişcasivalcasival girişenbetenbet girişceltabetceltabet girişcasinoroyalcasinoroyal girişenobahisenobahis girişkralbetkralbet girişbovbetbovbet girişcasiveracasivera girişkralbetkralbet girişcasiveracasivera girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişhilbethilbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişgobahisgobahis girişgalabetgalabet girişcasivalcasival girişenbetenbet girişceltabetceltabet girişcasinoroyalcasinoroyal girişenobahisenobahis girişbovbetbovbet girişaresbetaresbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişbetnanobetnano girişceltabetceltabet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişhilbethilbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişbetciobetcio girişcasivalcasival girişcasiveracasivera girişenbetenbet girişenobahisenobahis girişsüratbetsüratbet girişibizabetibizabet girişenobahisenobahis girişsüratbetsüratbet girişaresbetaresbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişbetnanobetnano girişceltabetceltabet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişhilbethilbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişbetciobetcio girişcasiveracasivera girişenbetenbet girişcasivalcasival girişibizabetibizabet girişgrandbettinggrandbetting girişhilarionbethilarionbet girişkingbettingkingbettinglordpalace casinolordpalace girişluxbetluxbet girişmasterbettingmasterbetting girişmedusabahismedusabahis girişmeybetmeybet girişmillibahismillibahis girişmilosbetmilosbet girişmislibetmislibet girişorisbetorisbet girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritking girişjojobetjojobet girişjojobetjojobet girişkingroyalkingroyal girişkingroyalkingroyal girişcratosroyalbetcratosroyalbet girişcratosroyalbetcratosroyalbet girişmedusabahismedusabahis girişaresbetaresbet girişlunabetlunabet girişenbetenbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişbetasusbetasus girişbahiscasinobahiscasino giriştrendbettrendbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişyakabetyakabet girişbetkolikbetkolik girişgrandbettinggrandbetting girişmavibetmavibetnakitbahisnakitbahismeritkingmeritkinglunabetlunabetartemisbetartemisbetkavbetkavbetbetsmovebetsmovematbetmatbetbetkolikbetkolik girişgrandbettinggrandbetting girişmedusabahismedusabahis girişaresbetaresbet girişlunabetlunabet girişenbetenbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişbetasusbetasus girişbahiscasinobahiscasino giriştrendbettrendbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişyakabetyakabet girişmeritkingmeritkingbetcio girişlunabetlunabetnakitbahisbetcionakitbahisbetsmovebetciobetsmovemavibetmillibahis girişmavibetmillibahismarsbahismillibahismarsbahispalacebet girişartemisbetpalacebetartemisbetpalacebetcoinbarcoinbarkingbetting girişodeonbetodeonbetkingbettingkingbettingnesinecasino girişnesinecasinonesinecasinorinabet girişrinabetrinabetromabet girişromabetromabetsonbahis girişsonbahissonbahisibizabet girişibizabetibizabetsüratbet girişsüratbetsüratbetteosbet girişteosbetteosbetbetasus girişbetasusbetasusroyalbet girişroyalbetroyalbetmasterbetting girişmasterbettingmasterbettingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritkingbetticketbetticketbetyapbetyapcasinomilyoncasinomilyoncasinoroyalcasinoroyalcasivalcasivalcasiveracasiveraceltabetceltabetefesbetefesbetenobahisenobahisgalabetgalabetgobahisgobahisalobetalobetkulisbetkulisbetvipslotvipslotkalebetkalebet
Skip to content
Home » R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2

R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2

R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2 is an important decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales concerning the scope of the loss of control defence to murder under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The case examines how sexual infidelity is treated within that statutory framework and clarifies when the defence may properly be left to a jury.

This case brief explains the background, legal issue, statutory context, decision and significance of R v Clinton, based strictly on the material provided.

Legal Background of R v Clinton

The case concerned the defence of loss of control, which was introduced by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. This statutory defence replaced the former common law defence of provocation.

Under the statutory wording, sexual infidelity is specifically excluded as a qualifying trigger for the purposes of the loss of control defence. The interpretation of this exclusion formed the central issue in R v Clinton.

The appeals raised questions about how courts should approach situations where sexual infidelity is present alongside other circumstances said to have caused the defendant to lose control.

Facts of R v Clinton

R v Clinton was a joint appeal against conviction involving three men: Clinton, Parker and Evans. Each had been convicted of murdering his wife after discovering sexual infidelity. In all three cases, the defendants relied on the loss of control defence at trial.

Clinton

In Clinton’s case, he killed his wife in their family home. He was convicted of murder and arson at the Crown Court. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum specified term of 26 years.

At trial, the judge ruled that there was insufficient evidence of loss of control to allow the issue to be considered by the jury. As a result, the loss of control defence was not left to the jury.

Clinton appealed his conviction on the basis that the judge had wrongly excluded the defence from consideration.

Parker

Parker killed his wife in their family home following the discovery of her sexual infidelity. At trial, the loss of control defence was put to the jury. The jury rejected the defence and convicted him of murder.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum specified term of 17 years. Parker appealed his conviction.

Evans

Evans also killed his wife in their family home after discovering sexual infidelity. As in Parker’s case, the loss of control defence was put to the jury. The jury rejected the defence and convicted him of murder.

Evans was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum specified term of 11 years. He too appealed his conviction.

The Legal Issue

The principal issue in R v Clinton was whether the statutory prohibition on sexual infidelity as a qualifying trigger, imposed by section 55(6)(c) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, was valid and how it should be applied.

More specifically, the Court of Appeal was asked to determine:

  • Whether the loss of control defence could apply where sexual infidelity was combined with other factors that allegedly caused the defendant to lose control.
  • Whether sexual infidelity must always be disregarded.
  • Whether the trial judges had properly directed the juries.
  • Whether Clinton’s judge had been correct to refuse to leave the defence to the jury.

The defendants argued that sexual infidelity alone was not the cause of their loss of control. Instead, they claimed that their loss of control resulted from a number of factors, of which sexual infidelity formed part.

R v Clinton Judgement

The judgement in R v Clinton was delivered on 17 January 2012 by the Lord Chief Justice, Igor Judge, with Justice Henriques and Justice Gloster concurring.

The Court of Appeal addressed the interpretation of section 55(6)(c) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which excludes sexual infidelity as a qualifying trigger.

Sexual Infidelity as the Sole Trigger

The Court held that if sexual infidelity is the only potential trigger for the defendant’s actions, then section 55(6)(c) must be applied. In such circumstances, sexual infidelity cannot found the loss of control defence.

Sexual Infidelity Combined with Other Circumstances

However, the Court further held that where sexual infidelity is not the only cause of the loss of control, it may be taken into account if it is integral to the facts as a whole.

In light of sections 54(1)(c) and 54(3) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, sexual infidelity may be considered where it forms part of the overall circumstances said to have caused the defendant to lose control.

The Court therefore clarified that sexual infidelity must not automatically be excluded from consideration if it is intertwined with other relevant factors.

Outcome of the Appeals in R v Clinton

Clinton

In Clinton’s case, the Court found that the trial judge had misdirected herself as to the relevance of sexual infidelity. By treating sexual infidelity as entirely irrelevant and refusing to leave the issue of loss of control to the jury, the judge had erred.

The Court of Appeal allowed Clinton’s appeal and ordered a retrial.

At the retrial, Clinton pleaded guilty to murder. He received a mandatory life sentence with a minimum tariff of twenty years.

Parker and Evans

In the cases of Parker and Evans, the Court found that the loss of control defence had properly been put to the jury. The jury had considered the defence and rejected it.

The Court determined that the jury directions in those cases were satisfactory. As a result, the appeals of Parker and Evans were dismissed.

Conclusion

R v Clinton is a leading Court of Appeal decision on the modern loss of control defence under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The case arose from a joint appeal involving three men convicted of murdering their wives following the discovery of sexual infidelity.

The Court held that sexual infidelity cannot be relied upon as the sole trigger for the defence. However, where it is part of a broader factual matrix, it may be taken into account. Clinton’s appeal was allowed due to judicial misdirection, while the appeals of Parker and Evans were dismissed.

By clarifying the treatment of sexual infidelity within the statutory framework, R v Clinton remains a significant authority on the interpretation and application of the loss of control defence in English criminal law.