5: Involuntary Manslaughter Flashcards
what is involuntary manslaughter
an indictable only offence where D does not have the intention to kill or cause serious harm
max punishment for involuntary manslaughter
life imprisonment
2 forms of involuntary manslaughter
- unlawful act manslaughter
- gross negligence manslaughter
what is unlawful act manslaughter known as
aka constructive manslaughter because the liability for death is built up or ‘constructed’ from the facts that D has done a dangerous unlawful act which caused the death
defenition of unlawful act manslaughter
D has committed an act which is:
- unlawful
- dangerous on an objective test
- causes the Vs death
- an unlawful acts for which D had the mens rea
explain ‘unlawful act’
- the death must be caused by a criminal offence such as arson or robbery (Lamb)
- a civil wrong is not enough to create liability for UAM (Franklin)
- there must be an act; an omission is not enough to create liability for UAM (Lowe- wilful neglect not enough)
explain ‘dangerous act’
The unlawful act must be dangerous on an objective test: Church: if a sober and reasonable person realises that the UA might cause ‘some harm’ that is sufficient.
- D doesn’t have to foresee a specific type of harm (JM&SM)
Larkin confirmed that if D is performing an unlawful, dangerous act that is likely to injure another person and inadvertently aides the death of that other person by that act then he is guilty of manslaughter
The act doesn’t need to be aimed at V (Mitchell) and can be aimed at property (Goodfellow)
Bristow, Dunn, Delay: the circumstances of the commission of burglary could make it dangerous
The risk of harm includes shock but not mere ‘emotional disturbance’ Dawson
Where a reasonable person would be aware of Vs frality and the risk of physical harm to the V then D will be guilty (Watson)
explain ‘causes the death’
the unlawful act must cause the death:
- factual causation, but for, White
- legal causation, more than slight or trifling link’, Kimsey
- no breaks in chain
- third party: **Smith (operating/substantial) Hughes (significant/substantial) Cheshire (independent/ potent no longer made significant contribution), Jordan (palpably wrong), Malcherek (life support machine, Pagett (reasonably foreseeable)
- Victim: Roberts (reasonably foreseeable) Williams (in proportion/not daft)
- Thin skull rule Blaue
- natural but unpredictable event
Cato: if D supplied and injected V w drugs they will be guilty of UAM
BUT, Kennedy: if V self injected drugs then this is a voluntary intervening act which breaks the chain
mens rea for UAM
D must have the necessary MR for the unlawful act
Newbury & Jones: D doesn’t have to realise that the act is unlawful or dangerous
D doenst have to intend to kill or cause serious harm
define gross negligence manslaughter
GNM is when D owes V a duty of care, breaches that duty in a grossly (very) negligent way, causing the death of the V.
leading case of GNM
Adomako
established that the elements required to prove GNM are:
- existence of a duty of care to V
- breach of duty
- breach causes death
- gross negligence which jury considers criminal
- risk of death
explain ‘duty of care’
Adomako: Lord Mackay said that the ordinary principles of negligence in civil law should apply when whether a duty of care exists and if it had been breached
Donoghue v Stevenson: Lord Atkin set out the test for negligence in civil cases: D owes a duty of care to anyone closely and directly affected by his act or omission
duty of care may arise:
- between doctor and patient (Adomako)
- voluntary assumption of duty (Stone & Dobinson)
- through relationships (Gibbons & Proctor)
- through tenancy agreement (Singh)
- contractual duty (Litchfield)
- Wacker: there can be a duty in a criminal case even if there would not be a duty in a civil case because Vs were party to an illegal act
Willoughby: D can still owe a duty of care to V even if D and V are engaged in criminal activity
explain ‘breach of duty’
the duty of care must be breached
a breach of duty is an act or an omission (Evans) that falls below the standard of a reasonable person
the breach doesn’t have to be unlawful
explain ‘breach causes death’
it must be proven that Ds breach of duty was the cause of Vs death, and ghat had D exercised proper care the death would not have occurred
causation rules apply:
- factual causation, but for, White
- legal causation, more than slight or trifling link’, Kimsey
- no breaks in chain
- third party: **Smith (operating/substantial) Hughes (significant/substantial) Cheshire (independent/ potent no longer made significant contribution), Jordan (palpably wrong), Malcherek (life support machine, Pagett (reasonably foreseeable)
- Victim: Roberts (reasonably foreseeable) Williams (in proportion/not daft)
- Thin skull rule Blaue
- natural but unpredictable event
explain ‘gross negligence’
the negligence has to be ‘gross’
Bateman: negligence is ‘gross’ when it goes ‘beyond a matter of mere compensation between subjects and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the State and conduct deserving of punishment’ , eg Litchfield
Adomako: it is for the jury to decide if the breach of duty of care is serious enough to amount to ‘gross’ negligence
