Jonathan, who was stressed because of his workplace, then got a call about his wife's defiant and infidelity, and about use of their funds to pay for Lucy's debts by Mina, was sufficient enough to show that Jonathan's loss of self-control was very angry with Mina. Therefore what he did was in fuelled anger and any other reasonable person would have done the same thing. It should then be left to the jury to decide whether his loss of self-control was at a particular stage through out this whole event.
So far looking at these cases and statues, Jonathan will be acquitted of murder and will be charged with voluntary manslaughter, whereby his sentence is left at judge's discretion. In LUCY's case, she would be charged with murder as well. Lucy who was having an love affair with Mina, who also used some funds for their (Mina and Jonathan)'s son. She can put forward the defence of diminished responsibility12, whereby this will only reduce a murder conviction to manslaughter. The same punishment e.
g. life imprisonment may be imposed for manslaughter as for murder, R v Byrne13, where the conviction for murder reduced on appeal to manslaughter but sentence of life imprisonment remained as the accused was a sexual psychopath. The diminished responsibility as described in s. 2. of 1957 act: "Where a person kills… shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from such abnormality of mind… as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions…
" The diminished responsibility must therefore be considering as only a partial defence to murder. It can be seen that Lucy was suffering from a personality disorder, which made her act the way she acted. The abnormality of mind is means 'a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal14'. The question of whether Lucy personality disorder amounts to abnormal mind, need to be consider carefully.
As her disorder was from the physical abuses she suffered since she was a child, she when was pushed by Sadie reacted in a way that any reasonable person would but the way or the strength she pushed Sadie with, can only be explained because of the personality disorder she was suffering. The main reason of her pushing Sadie with such strength must be taken into consideration that it was her personality disorder, which was the substantial cause for her to do, as per R. v. Gitten15, where the jury should ignore any intoxication involved in the facts and consider all other factors which substantially impaired mental responsibility of the accused.
Her personality disorder, can be seen as abnormal by any normal person and what she has done as a result of this disorder can be expected from her. But even though her disorder is not from either of 'a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind, any inherent causes, or induced by disease or injury', she suffered from physical abuse from childhood made her equivalent to any abnormal state of mind, as per R. v. Seers16. 12. Covered by the s. 2, of Homicide Act 1957 13.  2 QB 396 14. R v Byrne  2 QB 396 15.  QB 698
16.  Crim LR 315 In that case, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) held that there was sufficient evidence that responsibility had been seriously, meaning more that trivially, therefore substantially impaired. As the mental disorder of her was the main substantial cause for her to act in that way. It was the main operating cause which made her push Sadie with such strength that when she fell the ground very hard, as per R. v. Dietschmann17. The abnormality of mind must substantially impair the defendant's mental responsibility.
The impairment therefore need not be total, but it must be more than minimal. The defendant may know what he is doing, know it is wrong, and have some control over himself but find it substantially more difficult than a normal person would to control his actions, e. g. R. v. Byrne18. So, Lucy will be convicted of voluntary manslaughter, with the special partial defence of diminished responsibility. If successfully pleaded, the defence avoids the imposition of a mandatory life sentence and enables the judge's discretion to give whatever sentence is regarded as appropriate.