R v Clinton [2012]

R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2 is an important criminal case where the Court of Appeal considered the scope of the loss of control defence to murder under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, particularly in the context of sexual infidelity.

The case involved a joint appeal by three men (Clinton, Parker, and Evans) who had each killed their wives following the discovery of their partner's sexual infidelity. All three had sought to rely on the defence of loss of control, which had replaced the common law defence of provocation under the 2009 Act. The statute, specifically Section 55(6)(c), provides that sexual infidelity is to be disregarded when assessing qualifying triggers for loss of control.

At trial, the judge in Clinton’s case ruled there was insufficient evidence for the loss of control defence to be left to the jury. In the cases of Parker and Evans, the defence was allowed to go to the jury, who nonetheless rejected it and convicted both men of murder. On appeal, the central issue was whether the trial judges were right in their interpretation of Section 55(6)(c), in particular, whether sexual infidelity must always be disregarded, even when it is part of a broader set of circumstances leading to the defendant's loss of control.

The Court of Appeal, led by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, held that sexual infidelity cannot on its own amount to a qualifying trigger, but where it forms part of a wider context of circumstances that contributed to the loss of control, it should be taken into account where it is integral to the facts as a whole and should not be automatically excluded from consideration. This means although sexual infidelity cannot be relied upon as a qualifying trigger for loss of control, the existence of sexual infidelity does not prevent reliance on the defence if other qualifying triggers are present.

The court clarified that where other factors constitute a qualifying trigger, sexual infidelity can be considered in assessing whether the circumstances were of an extremely grave character and whether the defendant had a justifiable sense of being wronged. Additionally, sexual infidelity may be taken into account in the third component of the defence, examining the defendant's circumstances.

The court ruled that the trial judge in Clinton’s case had erred in excluding the defence from the jury's consideration. Consequently, Clinton was granted a retrial, but later pleaded guilty to murder and received a life sentence with a minimum term of 20 years. The appeals of Parker and Evans were dismissed, with the Court finding that the trial judges in those cases had properly directed the jury.

This decision clarified that sexual infidelity is not a complete bar to the loss of control defence when it is part of a wider set of provocative conduct, reaffirming that each case must be assessed on its full factual context. However, it also confirmed that sexual infidelity alone remains insufficient to ground the defence.