Author: admin

Assessment criteria:
The mark for this component of assessment constitutes 10% of
the overall mark for the module.
Assessment criteria:
 Conduct: courtroom manner and etiquette.
 Delivery: presentation and clarity of speech, including suitability of
 Authority: use made of each authority or other literature cited.
 Interventions: ability to deal appropriately with judge’s
interventions.
 Demonstrate an understanding of the law on the partial defence of
loss of control.
This component counts for 10% of the final marks for this module.
The moot will be delivered by each student individually. One student
will act for the prosecution (respondent) and one will be acting for the
defence (appellant).
Each student will have 10 minutes to make a submission.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
R v Flo Pritchard
Flo Pritchard has been in a volatile relationship with Gordon for 12 years. Gordon is
regularly abusive towards Flo, subjecting her to physical violence and rape. As a
result of many years of physical abuse, Flo suffers from depression and she has been
battling alcoholism for the past 9 years.
One evening, Gordon comes home from work in a temper. When she asks him how
his day was, he shouts at Flo and tells her to mind her own business. He then tells her
that she had better keep out of his way or she’ll be “in for a hiding later”. Terrified, Flo
disappears into the kitchen. She can hear Gordon moving around in the living room
and then she hears him put on the television. After a few hours, all has gone quiet and
Flo decides to risk coming out of the kitchen. She notices that Gordon has fallen
asleep on the sofa. She then goes back into the kitchen and grabs a carving knife.
She approaches Gordon quietly and stabs him in the chest three times. He dies as a
result.
Flo was charged with murder and tried at the Crown Court at Greenwich. She sought
to rely on the defence of loss of control. The trial judge, His Honour Judge Benny,
ruled that the partial defence of loss of control was not available to the defendant
because there was a cooling off period between the provoking words or conduct and
ruled that the partial defence of loss of control was not available to the defendant
because there was a cooling off period between the provoking words or conduct and
the killing. The jury convicted the defendant of murder. The defendant now appeals to
the Court of Appeal against her conviction on the ground that His Honour Judge
Benny erred in withdrawing the defence of loss of control from the jury’s
consideration. A cooling off period does not preclude the defence of loss of control,
and the defence should have been available in this case.
Your task is to deliver a moot for either the prosecution or the defence arguing in
respect of Flo’s liability. You must explain the basis for your arguments fully in this
moot.
A skeleton argument is basically a page or two outlining your case; who you are, what your submissions
are and which authorities you will be using.
Etiquette
Do remember that these are guidelines as to what is the correct procedure of a moot.