1B Unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter (complete)

Question 1

What are the 4 stages for an unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 1

1) Unlawful act
2) The act must be dangerous
3 The act must have caused the death
4) Mens rea

Question 2

1) Parts of an unlawful act

Answer 2

i) Death must be caused by an act not an omission (Lowe)
ii) The unlawful act must be a crime (Franklin)

Question 3

Ratio of Lamb

Answer 3

D and his friend viewed the incident as a joe. There was unlawful act as Lamb didn’t intend or foresee the risk of hitting is friend (battery) or intend to frighten him (assault).

Question 4

What cases are associated with the dangerous test?

Answer 4

Church, Dawson, Watson, JM & SM, Bristow

Question 5

Ratio of Church

Answer 5

An act was dangerous if all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise the risk of some harm, albeit not serious harm. This is an objective test.

Question 6

Ratios of Dawson and Watson

Answer 6

Dawson- the reasonable person could not have been aware of the attendant’s bad heart.

Watson- the unlawful act was dangerous because a reasonable person would have seen the old man’s frailty and old age.

Dawson doesn’t pass the dangerous test, Watson wins.

Question 7

Ratio of JM & SM

Answer 7

The sober and reasonable person only had to foresee some harm, they didn’t have to foresee a specific type of harm.

Question 8

Ratio of Bristow

Answer 8

CA stated that burglaries were not automatically dangerous.

Question 9

What has to be proved for causation?

Answer 9

Factual causation, legal causation, Novus actus interveniens.

Question 10

What is the test for factual causation?

Answer 10

‘But for’ test (White)

Question 11

What is the test for legal causation?

Answer 11

Operating and substantial cause of death (Kimsey)

Question 12

What are the cases for intervening acts?

Answer 12

Pagett
Williams and Roberts
Kennedy
Cheshire
Jordan

Question 13

Ratio of Pagett

Answer 13

Act of a third party- it was reasonably foreseeable that the police would shoot, so D was liable.

Question 14

Ratios of Roberts and Williams

Answer 14

The actions of the victim in Roberts were reasonably foreseeable because she didn’t do anything ‘daft or unexpected’

However, the victim’s actions in Williams were not reasonably foreseeable so V’s actions broke the chain of causation.

Question 15

Ratio of Kennedy

Answer 15

Act of victim- V voluntarily injected the drug so broke the chain of causation to D by his own actions.

Question 16

Ratio of Cheshire

Answer 16

Medical intervention will only break the chain of causation in extraordinary cases.

Question 17

Ratio of Jordan

Answer 17

Medical treatment was palpably wrong so broke the chain of causation.

Question 18

What is the thin skull rule?

Answer 18

‘Take your victim as you find them’ (Blaue)

Question 19

What is the thin skull rule?

Answer 19

‘Take your victim as you find them’ (Blaue)

Question 20

Ratio of Shohid

Answer 20

The unlawful and dangerous act need not be the sole cause of death, so long as it was not trivial.

Question 21

How do you get the mens rea for unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 21

The mens rea for the crime that constituted the unlawful act e.g. the unlawful act may be battery or assault.

Question 22

What cases are used for the mens rea of unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 22

Lamb
Andrews

Question 23

Ratio of Lamb (mens rea)

Answer 23

D lacked the mens rea for either offence, and so did not have the mens rea of unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter either.

Question 24

Ratio of Andrews

Answer 24

CA upheld conviction for an unlawful manslaughter conviction where he initial crime was strict liability and thus required no mens rea.