R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal