Criminal Law

Criminal Law



R v Flo Pritchard

Your Lordship, I am . . . . . . ..  representing the appellant Fro Pritchard. My Lord the Crown Court at Greenwich convicted Fro Pritchard with murder after his Honour Judge Benny denied her submission for the partial defence of loss of control.


The big issue in question is whether his lordship erred in denying the Flo Pritchard the defence of loss of control.


The decision of the Crown Court at Greenwich went against the Coroners and Justice Acts 2009. The section 54(2) of the Act does not require a sudden loss of control (The National Archives, 2009). The court relied on the provocation Act that was repealed by the Coroners and Justice Act (Card et al., 2013). Thus, the Crown Court at Greenwich consideration that there was a cooling off period is a fact that the court assumed the loss of control to be temporary and sudden.

Instead, the court should have considered whether there was sufficient trigger that would have caused Flo Pritchard to lose control.  My Lord, allow me to consider Section 55 of the Coronary Act that provides a clear guideline on the qualifying trigger. The Section 55(3) directs that the loss of control to be attributed to the fear that serious violence would occur (Child et al., 2015). The Section 55(4) exemplifies the section 55(3) by making clear the loss of control would result from the things said or done that made the plaintiff an exceedingly grave character (Great Britain, 2009). In addition, the action made the D justify that she was seriously wronged.          Your Lordship, the elements of the qualifying trigger, had been sufficiently fulfilled in the case. First, Flo Pritchard had experienced the violence for more than twelve years. Earlier, she had been exposed to physical violence and even rape. Therefore, when Gordon arrives home from work with temper, it is an action enough to instil fear to Flo Pritchard considering what she has experienced previously. Any other action would have terrified her extremely. The Flo requests to know how Gordon day was but she was told to mind her own business. Besides, She is told she would be “in a hiding later” if she failed to keep out of the Gordon’s ways. At this time, Flo Pritchard stayed in the kitchen for hours after which she risked coming out of the kitchen. The warning passed, the previous acts done to her, and the fact that she spent hours in the kitchen due to the threats reveal that she had lost control (Fitz-Gibbon, 2014). The fact that Flo Pritchard feared coming out even when she heard Gordon switch on the television and even after spending hours in the kitchen confirm that, she had not gained her control (Ormerod et al., 2015).

With that, my Lord, I would present some few cases that the honourable judges were faced with a similar issue. In R v, Hatter (2013) the court considered whether the appellate had been exposed to a character who was extremely grave and whether it was justifiable whether the appellant had been seriously wronged (E-Law cases, 2013). In R v Doughty (1986) it was considered that a constant baby cry would amount to an act that would provoke the loss of control (E-Law Resources, 2015).


With the facts presented, I believe that my Lord you are convinced that Flo Pritchard had lost control and there was an adequate trigger for the loss.


I humbly request the court to reverse the decision of the Crown Court at Greenwich that considered the suddenness of the loss of control.


Card, R., Cross, R., & Jones, P. A. (2014). Card, Cross and Jones criminal law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Child, J., Ormerod, D. C., & Smith, J. C. (2015). Smith & Hogan’s essentials of criminal law.

E-Law cases. (2013). R v Hatter(2013). Retrieved on 1st September, 2015, from

E-Law Resources. (2015). R v Doughty (1986) 83 Cr App R 319 Court of Appeal. Retrieved on 1st September, 2015,

Fitz-Gibbon, K. (2014). Homicide law reform, gender and the provocation defence: A comparative perspective.

Great Britain. (2009). Legislative scrutiny: Coroners and Justice Bill : report, together with formal minutes and written evidence. London: TSO.

Ormerod, D. C., Laird, K., Hogan, B., & Smith, J. C. (2015). Smith and Hogan’s criminal law.

The National Archives. (2009). Coroners and Justice Acts 2009. Retrieved on 1st September, 2015, from

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: