12) Manslaughter Flashcards
What two ways do you come across intoxication
- As a way to negate mens rea of murder
- An influencing factor on the special defences fof loss of control and diminished responsibility.
Can intoxicated loss of control and or diminshed responsibility be argued as partial defences to muurder?
- Yes, it can be a way to reduce the conviction to voluntary manslaughter if successful.
Meaning of intoxication
Drugs or alcohol
Negating mens rea via intoxication
- Can use evidence of intoxication
- Show they did not form necessary mens rea = intention to kill or cause GBH to the victim
- If no mens rea = acquittal
Intoxication and loss of control
Key case
R v Asmelash
R v Asmelash
- Drinking does not deprive LoC defence
- LoC defence approached with reference to the D’s voluntary intoxication
- If a sober person would be triggered - would not be deprived of the loss of control defence
- Alcohol or drugs problem - taunted about condition - formed part of the trigger = form part of the circumstances for consideration
R v Morhall
Facts
- D was addicted to glue sniffing
- Taunted about the habit = hopeless character and incapable of employment
Addiction relevant to gravity of the provocation - Jury had to consider what a reasonable man, who was not high on glue would do.
R v Morhall
Principles
- Defendant not precluded from defence of LOC becayse he is drunk
- Intoxication will be ignored in accordance with CJA 2009, s54(3), if it has no connection to the things said or done which make up the qualifying trigger.
If there is a connection between the things said or done which make up the qualifying trigger, jury can take intoxication into account in assessing the gravity of qualifuing trigger
Intoxication and diminished responsibility
Two approaches
Depends on whether intoxication is:
* Independent of abnormality of mental functioning (eg + voluntarily intoxication)
* As a result of Alcohol Dependency Syndrome
Case for if Defendant suffers
Intoxication & Mental Abnormality
** R v Dietschmann**
BEFORE CHANGES
R v Dietschmann
- Impossible task for jury to ignore effect of alcohol
- Decide that the defendant, sober, would still have killed as a result of the abnormality
BEFORE CHANGES - Instead jury must first consider the effect of matters other than alcohol, determine whether amount to such abnormality of mental functioning as might have substantially impaired the defendants abilitu to do one fo the things in HA 1857 s 2(1A)
After R v Dietschmann
- Jury must consider the effect of matters other than alcohol
- Determine whether they amounted to abnormality of function that might have impaired D’s ability to do things in HA 1957, s 2(1A)
If the defendant was intoxicated at the time of killing, the jury should then ask…
AMF
Despite the drink….
1) He was suffering from mental abnormality; and
2) His mental abnormality substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his fatal acts?
Jury may still find that the defence operates, even if they consider that the alcohol may have played a part in the defendant’s inability to do one of the factors in HA 1957, s 2(1A)
HA 1957, s2(1A)
Can jury find defence for mental abnormality if voluntarily intoxicated>
Jury may still find that the defence operates, even if they consider that the alcohol may have played a part in the defendant’s inability to do one of the factors in HA 1957, s 2(1A)
R v Kay
CoA considering the amended defence of diminished responsibilitysaid that it was bound by R v Dietschmann
* Case still applies
R v Dowds
- Voluntary acute intoxication is not capable of being relied upon to found diminished responsibility
- Presence of a “recognised medical condition”, is necessary but not suffiicient, condition to raise issue of diminished responsibility.
Cases that relate to Alcohol Dependency Syndrome
- R v Wood
- R v Stewart
- R v Kay
R v Woods
ADS
- Artificial to draw a distinction between ADS and involuntray drinking,
- Jury must decide whether ADS was a significant factor in leading the defendant to consume alcohol, even if there was an element of voluntary choice either to start or not to stop at some point.
When can AMF arise due to Alcohol Dependency Syndrome?
- Did defendant have any voluntary choice to start or not to stop drinking?
- If ADS was a sigificant factor, can conclude responsibility was impaired as a result of the abnormality of mental functioning.
R v Wood
R v Stewart
ADS
- Jury must be satisfied that there was **abnormality of mental functioning. **
- Also open to jury to find, notwithstanding the condition, that was not suffering AMF
- If jury find they are suffering from an abnormality - must find a recognised medical condition.
- Evidence of ADS
- Did ADS substantially impair D’s mental responsibility
Will voluntary and temporary drunkeness, based on habitual heavy binge drinking be sufficient for ADS?
Not likely to be enough
R v Stewart
Factors that may assist the jury in deciding whether ADS substantially impaired D’s mental responsibility
- Extent and seriousness of defendant’s dependency
- Extent to which his ability to control his drinking was reduced
- Whether he was capable of abstinence and if so;
- for how long
- Whether he was choosing for some particular reason (such as a birthday) to decide to get drunk / more drunk than usual.
- Pattern of drinking leading up to and on the day itself
- Ability to make decisions about ordinary day-to-day decisions.
R v Stewart
R v Kay
- No reason to depart from R v Stewart.
- Coupled with s2(1) of Homicide Act 1957, provides a clear and sensible approach for directing the jury.
Not binary nor simplistic = flexible enough
Kingston
A drunken intent is still intent.
Loss of control and intoxication
- Did D lose self-control?
- Did D act due to fear or anger qualifying trigger? D’s drug or alcohol addition can be taken into account assessing the magnitude of the qualifying agnger trigger if D was taunted about the addiction.
- Normal Person Test - intoxicated person not precluded from a defence. If D is addicted to drugs or alcohol, will be a characteristic given to the normal person, but normal levels of tolerance and self-restraint and be sober Asmelash
Is voluntary intoxication on its own enought to be relied upon as a defence of diminished responsibility?
- No, not on its own
Dowds
Who is the authority if D has
* An abnormality of mental functioning
AND
* Is voluntarily intoxicated
Dietschmann
* D must have an AMF
* AMF must arise from a recognised medical condition
* AMF must have substantially impaired the defendant’sability to do one of the things in s2(1A) Homicide Act 1957
* AMF must provide, an explanation for D’s conduct, even if it is not the only cause - alcohol can be another reason.
If D’s AMF arises from ADS
- D must have an AMF at the time of killing due to ADS
- Factors to be taken into account include the extent and severity of ADS
- AMF must arise from a recognised medical condition = ADS
- AMF must have substantially impaired defendant’sability to do one of the things in s2(1A) Homicide Act 1957
- AMF must provide an explanation for D’s conduct even if it’s not the only cause defendant’sability to do one of the things in s2(1B) Homicide Act 1957
A defendant is charged with murder but is intoxicated at the time.
When considering the defendant’s criminal liability at what point in your analysis will you take into account the intoxication?
The question you will ask is even though intoxicated, did D form the mens rea of intention to kill or intention to cause grievous bodily harm?
A defendant is a drug addict who kills under a loss of control having been taunted about his addiction by the victim.
The defendant was intoxicated at the time. When considering the defendant’s criminal liability at what point in your loss of control analysis will you take into account the addiction?
D’s drug or alcohol addiction can be taken into account in assessing the magnitude of the qualifying anger trigger if D was taunted about the addiction.
If D is addicted to drugs or alcohol this will be a characteristic given to the normal person but the normal person will still have normal levels of tolerance and self-restraint and be sober,
Asmelash.
Dowds
Voluntary Intoxication is no excuse
What distinguishes murder from Involuntary manslaughter?
A lack of “malice aforethought”.
Unlawful Act (Constructive) Manslaughter
- Accused lacks the mens rea for murder but kills someone in the course of committing an unlawful criminal act.
DPP v Newbury and Jones
Unlawful Manslaughter
- Defendant’s pushed a concrete paving slab onto an oncoming train, killing the guard.
To be guilty must prove - Defendants intentionally (voluntarily) did an act;
- The act was unlawful
- The unlawful act was dangerous; and
- The unlawful act caused the death of the victim
What is needed for Unlawful Act Manslaughter
- Intentional / voluntary act
- Unlawful act
- Dangerous Act
- Caused the death of the victim.
Accused must intentionally have carried out an act, which results in the death of one person. This refers to to intention with regard to the doing of the act, not the consequences which flow from it.
What are the three aspectsof the defendant’s act that make it unlawful?
- A criminal act
- An intrinsically unlawful act; and
- An act rather than an omission
R v Franklin
Unlawful act
- Unlawful act must be criminal (Mens Rea and Actus Rea)
- Cannot be civil wrong
R v Lamb
Criminal act
- Criminal act must be independent of the fact that it has caused death.
- Must include both the actus reus and mens rea of a criminal act. Criminal Act must be proven
- Revolver and practical joke, Manslaughter.
- No intention of committing assault = no mens rea
R v Scarlett
Lawful?
- Believed D was about to hit him, physically removed him from the premises.
- Deceased fell down steps, sufffered a head injury & died
- Was using reasonable force to prevent a crime = no unlawful assault = conviction for unlawful act manslaughter was quashed.
The unlawful act must be a criminal act
- The unlawful act need not be serious and can simply be common assault.
- Typically the unlawful act will be an offence against the person, but it can also be any offence. eg theft or criminal damage.
The act must be intrinsically unlawful
- Unlawful act cannot be based on a lawful act, which becomes unlawful only because of negligence / reclesness manner of it being performed (eg driving).
Andrews v Direcror of Public Prosecutions
Andrews v Director of Public Prosecutions
Intrinsically Unlawful
- Act must be intrinsically unlawful
- There is an obvious difference in the law of manslaughter between unlawful act and careless lawful act with a degree of carelessness which the Statute makes riminal
- Otherwise a man who killed another while driving without due care would commit manslaighter.
Unlawful act manslaughter
There must be an act rather than omission
- A person cannot be guilty of unlawful act manslaughter by an omission
What type of manslaughter would be a failure to do something whie under a duty to do it?
Gross negligence manslaughter
R v Lowe
An act rather than omission
- Defendant’s manslaughter conviction quashed
- Criminal omission to look after his 9 week old daughter
- Manslaughter not inevitable, even if an omission is deliberate
The act must be dangerous
R v Church
- The unlawful act must be such that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise the risk of some harm.
- This test is an objective test, depends on what a sober and reasonable person would appreciate
DPP v Newbury
R v Dawson
Type of harm
- Type of harm likely to result from unlawful act must be physical and not emotional harm
- However, shock can produce devastating effects on the nervous system - that is surely harm
R v JM & SM
Forseeability of harm
CoA said the type of harm a reasonable person would have forseen does not have to be that actually caused.
Circumstances to be taken into account - dangerous act
- Dangerousness of the act is judged from the point of view of a sober and reasonable person.
- Reasonable person would have knowledge of the circumstances at the time of the offence
R v Dawson
R v Dawson
Circumstances
- Masks and imitation gun and pick axe
- Cashier had a heart ttack
- Had hear condition
Reasonable person did not know about heart condition - Still would have known that it was dangerous
R v Watson
Circumstances
- Burglary became dangerouse when they realised elderly man in the house
- Reasonable person would consider risk to elderly frail man
R v Ball
Circumstances
- Reasonable person has any special knowledge of Defendant
- Eg weight difference between blanks and live ammo
R v Cato
Administering drugs
- Injected heroin - died
- Cant consent to ABH+
- = Unlawful Act Manslaughter
If drug taker is aware of what they are taking and takes drugs voluntarily
= Not guilty of manslaughter
* Free informed and deliberate choice of drug taker = interveniens
If drug taker is deceived / unaware as to drug they are taking
Supplier = May be guilty of unlawful act manslaughter
R v Kennedy
Supply drugs
- D filled syringe and passed to V
- V chose to inject = free and informed
- = V’s act
Negligence in manslaughter
Beyond a matter of compensation, such disregard for life and safety = crime against state
Negligence e.g dislodged oxygen tube
R v Bateman; R v Adomako
Requirements of Gross Negligence Manslaughter
- Existence of duty of care
- Breach of duty
- Breach causes death
- There was risk of death
- Brach was so bad = Gross negligence
Adomako
R v Singh
Duty of care
- Faulty gas fire - carbon monoxide poisoning.
- Had assumed DoC, as maintenance man and point of contact for complaints.
- DoC assumed for his father’s tenants
R v Ruffel
Duty of Care
- Supplied drugs to victim
- Adverse reaction
- Tried to revive him.
- Left him outside on doorstep - died of hupothermia.
= assumed care and created dangerous situation
R v Whacker
- Lorry driver convicted after 58 illegal immigrants were suffocated in lorry.
- = negligence
Risk of death
- Obvious risk of death, not merely injury, but death
- Not satisfied by risk of bodily injury or health
Singh; Mistra; Rose
R v Rose
Risk of death
- Went for sight test - Missed examining optic nerves- Hydrocephalus
- Not enough as competent eye person might not have realised risk to life
- Would a reasonable and competent eye person have seen onvious and seriousClear and unambigous risk to life
R v Prentice
- Asked for supervision
- Injected with wrong drug
- Mistakes in supervision, drug storage = errors of others
D is responsible for multiple acts/omissions
Gross Neg
= easier to find Gross Neg
Misra; Litchfield
Can a single devastating act / omission amount to Gross Neg?
Yes, Adomako
If mistakes of D are brought on by mistakes of others?
Gross Neg
May be a reason to find no breach
Prentice
Can there be Gross Neg, even if others have been involved in the lead up to the death?
Yes, Singh
Should the jury take into account any special knowledge or skill of the D?
YES
Contrast Adomako and Mistra with Prentice and Litchfield
Is D’s mental state required for Gross Neg?
- NO particular requirements
- But knowledge and awareness not irrelevant
- Couldnt care less attitude = higher chance of conviction
- No genuine belief in risk = lower chance
