## Facts

- Mr. Clinton killed his wife, Dawn, following her disclosure of an extramarital affair.
- Prior to the incident, Mr. Clinton threatened suicide, to which his wife responded by taunting him.
- The fatal altercation involved Mr. Clinton striking his wife with a baton and strangling her.
- At trial, the judge excluded evidence of sexual infidelity when considering the defence of loss of control, citing Section 55(6)(c) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
- This exclusion formed the basis of Mr. Clinton's appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence of sexual infidelity can be considered in relation to the loss of control defence under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
2. How Section 55(6)(c) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which excludes sexual infidelity as a qualifying trigger, should be interpreted and applied.
3. Whether the surrounding circumstances, including infidelity, may be relevant in evaluating other potential qualifying triggers.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's exclusion of sexual infidelity was legally erroneous.
- The court clarified that sexual infidelity cannot serve as a qualifying trigger by itself under Section 55(6)(c).
- However, evidence of infidelity may be considered as part of the broader context when assessing the loss of control defence, especially in relation to other potential triggers.
- Section 54(1)(c) permits the jury to consider all the circumstances, making contextual evidence, including sexual infidelity, admissible.
- The appeal was allowed and a retrial was ordered for Mr. Clinton.

## Legal Principles

- Section 55(6)(c) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 excludes sexual infidelity as a standalone qualifying trigger for loss of control.
- The presence of sexual infidelity may still be relevant when evaluating the seriousness or context of other triggers, consistent with human emotional responses and the realities of interpersonal relationships.
- Section 54(1)(c) allows that all circumstances be taken into account when assessing whether a person might have lost self-control.
- A contextual rather than an absolute approach is necessary in interpreting statutory exclusions regarding evidence.

## Conclusion

R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2 established that while sexual infidelity alone cannot trigger the loss of control defence under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, it may be considered as part of the full factual context, ensuring statutes are applied in a manner mindful of human realities and legal fairness.
