Cases/ statute for chapt 3

Question 1

Lowe 1973

Answer 1

Invol manslaughter/Unlawful act manslaughter

Case: d neglected his child and the child died.
Not guilty of UAM

PoL: must be an criminally unlawful act, not an omission

Question 2

Adebolajo and Adebowale 2014

Answer 2

Within the queens peace part of AR

Case: D1 and D2 murdered v who was a soldier, who was out of work uniform. Tried to argue that killing was not within queens peace as they believed they at war with the queen after the war in Iraq.

PoL: the term ‘within the queens peace’, refers to the victim not the killer. Lee R was not at war - he was walking down road In civilian clothes.

Question 3

2 triggers for loss of control for CorJA 2009

Answer 3

Section 55 CorJA

1. Fear of serious violence by d or another identified person 55(3)
2. Things sailor done which constitute circs of an extremely grave nature and caused d to feel seriously wronged 55(4)

Question 4

Attorney General of Jersey v Holley 2005/6

Answer 4

Re loss of control/ a person of Ds age and sex are relevant

Case: D girlfriend with an ex after she told him she had sex with another man. Guilty. ( later convicted of manslaughter inCOA)

PoL:
Jury must consider whether A person of Ds age and sex with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint to might’ve acted in the same way.(2005)
In 2006 Chronic alcoholism should be taken into account.

Question 5

Clinton 2012

Answer 5

Loss of control/ trigger/ justifiable sense of being wronged

Case: D killed wife after she told him she was leaving him and that she had been having an affair.

PoL:
If sexual infidelity is mixed up with other things that contributed to D losing self control then the sexual infidelity will not be disregarded.

Question 6

Haddon 2003

Answer 6

Dim resp/ abnormality of mental functioning

Case: d killed his 10 week old baby by fracturing her school. D was suffering from personality disorder at the time (severe). Verdict manslaughter by diminished responsibility.

PoL: severe personality disorder can be an abnormality of mental functioning

Question 7

Franklin 1883

Answer 7

Invol manslaughter/ Unlawful act manslaughter

Case: threw box off pier into sea. It hit a swimmer who died. Not guilty as not a criminal act so p couldn’t construct unlawful act manslaughter.

PoL: meaning of ‘unlawful act’ is a crime not a tort. Must involve a crime, not a tort

Question 8

Actus Reus of homicide

Answer 8

Unlawful killing (causation)

Of a human being

Within the Queens peace

Question 9

Elements of gross neg manslaughter offence

Answer 9

Conduct- act or omission

Must be a breach of a duty of care

The breach must cause risk of death

Conduct must cause death (causation)

Conduct must be more than ‘mere’ negligence (Adomako 1994 and Bateman 1925)
Conduct so bad that the MR is criminal negligence

Question 10

Mohan 1976

Answer 10

Direct intent/ aim or purpose

Case D drove his car at the policeman, Who moved out of the way. Guilty of attempt. 🚘

PoL:
“A decision to bring about… The commission of an offence no matter whether the D desired the consequence of his act or not”

Question 11

Lamb 1967

Answer 11

Unlawful act manslaughter

Case: shot and killed friend when pressed trigger gun in a game. Didn’t understand how a revolver works so no MR for an assault or battery.

PoL: all elements of the AR and MR must be present. D didn’t have the MR for an assault or a battery.

Question 12

S54(1) CorJA 2009

AR and mr of murder but partly excused

D kills or is party to the killing

Loss of control need not be sudden but d will not qualify if he has provoked the incident

Answer 12

D not to be convicted of murder if:

1. Acts or omissions resulted from a loss of control AND
2. The loss of control had a qualifying trigger AND
3. a person of Ds sex and age and with a normal degree of self restraint and tolerance and In the circs of D might have reacted in the same way ( this codifies decisions in Camplin and Holley)

Question 13

Kennedy 2008

Answer 13

Liability for unlawful act manslaughter

Case: D prepared the syringe of heroin that V then self administered.
Not guilty

PoL:
The unlawful act must cause death. In order to be liable, D would have to self administer or administer jointly
A free and vol act by v relieves liability

Question 14

Bateman 1925

“Meaning of gross negligence”

Answer 14

“Gross” means more than mere negligence- only a very high degree of negligence would suffice

Question 15

Offence of murder

Answer 15

AR - unlawful killing of a human being with in the Queens peace

MR- intention to cause death/GBH (can be direct or indirect)

Question 16

Nedrick 1986

Answer 16

Indirect intent

Case: D poured paraffin through letterbox and set fire to it. Picked him killed on fire. Court of Appeal held that if if it was not Ds aim or purpose to kill/GBH then Jury may infer oblique intent if death/GBH certain and D foresaw this. 🔥

PoL:
The jury can infer oblique intent if D foresaw death/GBH at a virtual certainty. Oblique intent is a question for the jury

Question 17

Church 1965/ Dawson 1985

Answer 17

Unlawful act manslaughter/meaning of dangerous

PoL:
Test is objective
The criminal act must have been dangerous in that any sober and reasonable person would have recognised that it would subject the other person to at least some harm
Sets out the test of dangerousness in unlawful act manslaughter

Question 18

Elements of unlawful act manslaughter

Answer 18

Unlawful act
- Franklin 1883
- all elements of AR and MR (lamb 1967)
Must be an act, not an omission( Lowe 1973)

Can be against property - DPP v Newbury and Jones 1976

Dangerous kind
Church 1965, Dawson and Larkin :objective- any reasonable person (at least some harm)

Must cause death: Cato 1976 but not Kennedy 1998

MR: intention to do whatever act ( not recklessness) Andrews v DPP 1937

Question 19

Loss of control

Which sections apply?

Answer 19

Section 54:
Acts/ omissions/ triggers and objective test

Section 55 details the qualifying triggers

Question 20

Other homicide offences

Answer 20

Causing death by dangerous driving
S1 Road Traffic Act 1988

Familial homicide
S5 Domestic Violence, crime and victims act 2004

Corporate manslaughter and corporate homicide act 2007

Question 21

Malcherek 1981

Answer 21

“Human being” part of AR

Case:

PoL: brain stem dead is dead and turning off life-support does not constitute a Novus interveniens.

Question 22

Byrne 1960

Answer 22

Definition for abnormality of mental functioning for CorJA

” A state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal “ Byrne 1960

Question 23

Reeves 2012

Answer 23

Gross negligence manslaughter/ breach

Case: mother left her young children in bath for 45 mins. Ignored screams and then found younger one had died.

PoL: breach of parental duty caused the death of the child

Question 24

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland 1993

Answer 24

“Human being” bit of AR

Case: victim of crush in Hillsborough disaster left in PVS.

PoL: HoL ruled that “treatment” may be withdrawn in PVS cases if in best interest of patient. This doesn’t allow acts to bring about death but can allow omissions.

Question 25

DPP v Newbury and Jones 1976

Important!!!!

Answer 25

Paving slab into path of train and killed guard. Guilty of UAM

Shows that unlawful act manslaughter doesn’t have to be aimed at a person / can be aimed at property

Question 26

Woollin 1998

Answer 26

MR/ indirect intent

Case: D threw baby across room in temper. P accepted he had not intended death. Baby died 😭guilty

PoL: with indirect intention, D must have forseen that death or GBH would be a virtual certainty to allow a jury find intent

Question 27

Camplin 1978

Answer 27

Re loss of control

Case: 15-year-old D raped by man who then laughed at him. D hit him over the head with a pan and killed him

PoL
Age and sex still relevant when deciding whether defence can be used

Question 28

Re AGs Ref (no 3 of 1994) (1997)

Answer 28

“Human being” part of AR

Case: D caused damage to X whilst she was pregnant. In consequence, v born prematurely and only lived a few months.

PoL: life begins for the purpose of homicide offences once the fetus is fully expelled from the mothers womb.
An unborn baby is not a reasonable creature in being and therefore killing of it not matter. However if child survive outside mother then dies it can be homicide

Question 29

Adomako 1994

Answer 29

Gross negligence manslaughter/ breach

Case: anaesthetist failed to notice o2 tube disconnected in an operation for 9 mins. Patient died.

PoL:

• D must owe a duty of care and breach that duty. An omission will suffice

meaning of gross negligence

“The essence of the matter, which is supremely a jury question, is whether having regard to the risk of death involved, the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount in their judgement to a criminal act or omission” Lord Mackay

• only a high degree of negligence will suffice

Question 30

S 2 homicide act 1957 as amended by:

S 52 CorJA 2009- 4 parts

AR and MR of murder but partly excused.

D kills or is party to the killing of another

Answer 30

Defence for dim resp

Not to be convicted of murder if:

1. Suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning;Byrne 1960
2. Which arose from an recognised medical condition haddon 2003 and dietschmann 2003 AND
3. Which substantially impaired Ds ability to understand contact, form rational judgement or to exercise self-control (clearer but narrower- golds2014 and simcox 1964) AND
4. All of the above provides an explanation for Ds acts and omissions (ie: the abnormality CAUSED him to kill)
   Acute vol intox not capable (dowds 2012) but remember dietschmann 2003

Question 31

Dietschmann 2003

Answer 31

Dim resp/ which arose from a recognised medical condition

Case: d was depressed and drunk. He killed v.

PoL:
If the D has on abnormality of mental functioning AND is intoxicated, the intoxication is disregarded.
If the intoxication has led to a medical condition resulting in an AOMF, The defence may apply

Question 32

Loss of control (qual triggers)

S55(6)(c) says what?

Answer 32

Sexual infidelity in itself will not fall within the defence and cannot be a trigger,

However according to Clinton, Parker and Evans 2012, where sexual infidelity is “integral to the facts as a whole”, it will not be disregarded.

Question 33

When will the qual triggers in loss of control (s55) not apply?

Answer 33

If Ds fear of violence is caused by:

things that d incited to provide an excuse to use violence (s55(6)(b) )

Question 34

Corja defences

Partial defences only avail to murder

Answer 34

Untie the judges hands in relation to sentence.

Anything up to and including life sentence