Chapter 4 - Involutary Manslaughter (cases)

Question 1

Which 2 cases illustrate that there must be a criminal unlawful act and that a civil wrong isn’t sufficient?

Answer 1

(1) R v Franklin (1883)

2) R v Lamb (1967

Question 2

What were the facts in the case of R v Franklin?

Answer 2

The defendant threw a large box into the sea from the West Pier at Brighton and the box hit and killed a swimmer and it was held that a civil wrong was not enough to create liability for unlawful act manslaughter

Question 3

What were the facts in the case of R v Lamb?

Answer 3

Lamb and a friend were fooling around with a revolver in which they didn’t think a bullet was in the next chamber and so Lamb pointed the gun at the friend and pulled the trigger which killed him

Question 4

What was held in the case of R v Lamb?

Answer 4

The act of shooting his friend was not unlawful as pointing the gun at the friend was not an assault as the friend did not fear any violence from Lamb

Question 5

In which case is it shown that an omission cannot create liability for unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 5

R v Lowe (1973)

Question 6

What were the facts in the case of R v Lowe?

Answer 6

The D was convicted of wilfully neglecting his baby son and of manslaughter and the judge directed the jury that if they found the D guilty of wilful neglect then he was also guilty of manslaughter

Question 7

What was held in the case of R v Lowe?

Answer 7

He conviction of manslaughter was quashed because a finding of wilful neglect involved a failure to act and an omission cannot support a conviction for unlawful act manslaughter

Question 8

Which case illustrates that from an objective view the unlawful act must cause the risk of some harm?

Answer 8

R v Larkin (1943)

Question 9

What were the facts in the case of R v Larkin?

Answer 9

The D threatened a man with an open cut-throat razor to frighten him and his mistress tried to intervene but because she was drunk she fell on the blade which cut her throat and as a result she died

Question 10

What was held in the case of R v Larkin?

Answer 10

Threatening the man with the razor was a technical assault and was an act which was considered dangerous as it was likely to injure someone and therefore D was found guilty of manslaughter

Question 11

What was the statement held in the case of R v Church (1965)?

Answer 11

It was held that it must be ‘such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm’

Question 12

Which case held that it is not necessary for the sober and reasonable person to foresee the particular type of harm that the victim suffers?

Answer 12

R v JM and SM (2012)

Question 13

What were the facts in the case of R v JM and SM?

Answer 13

Two brothers were kicked out a nightclub but later returned and a fight broke out between the brothers and the doormen and during the fight V’s renal artery ruptured due to his condition which caused death

Question 14

Which was held in the case of R v JM and SM?

Answer 14

Even though the type of harm was not foreseeable in this case, this does not matter because it is not necessary for the sober and reasonable person to foresee the particular type of harm that the V suffers

Question 15

Which case held that an unlawful act can be aimed at property?

Answer 15

R v Goodfellow (1986)

Question 16

What were the facts in the case of R v Goodfellow?

Answer 16

The D set fire to his council house so that they would rehouse him but the fire got out of control and as a result his wife, son and another woman died

Question 17

What was held in the case of R v Goodfellow?

Answer 17

The D’s conviction for manslaughter was upheld because he had all the elements of unlawful act manslaughter and the unlawful act can be aimed against property provided it is ‘such that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject another person to at least, the risk of some harm’

Question 18

Which case held that an act which causes fear and apprehension is not sufficient for the ‘risk of harm’?

Answer 18

R v Dawson (1985)

Question 19

What were the facts in the case of R v Dawson?

Answer 19

3 D’s attempted to rob a petrol station and they were masked and armed with pick-axe handles and the petrol station attendant sounded the alarm but then dropped dead because of a heart attack

Question 20

What was held in the case of R v Dawson?

Answer 20

They weren’t convicted of manslaughter because causing the V fear through the attempted robbery was not a ‘dangerous’ act

Question 21

Which case held that where a reasonable person would be aware of the victim’s frailty and the risk of physical harm to him then the D will be liable?

Answer 21

R v Watson (1989)

Question 22

What were the facts in the case of R v Watson?

Answer 22

2 D’s entered a house intending to steal and the occupier was a trial 87-year-old man who heard them and came to investigate, but the 2 D’s physically abused him and left and the man died of a heart attack 90 minutes later

Question 23

What was held in the case of R v Watson?

Answer 23

Their convictions were quashed because it could not be established whether the break in caused the heart attack but the court also stated that a burglary could become ‘dangerous’ as soon as the old man’s condition became apparent to the reasonable man

Question 24

Which case held that if a burglary is carried out in such a way that the circumstances of the commission of the offence make it dangerous then this may amount to an unlawful act?

Answer 24

R v Bristow, Dunn and Delay (2013)

Question 25

What were the facts in the case of R v Bristow, Dunn and Delay?

Answer 25

The D’s were a gang who agreed to burgle V’s workshop which was down a long drive which meant there was a risk of discovery or prevention of the D’s escaping and they used at least 2 vehicles, and V was found dead near the workshop and couple hours after the burglary and there was evidence he had been hit by the vehicles

Question 26

What was held in the case of R v Bristow, Dunn and Delay?

Answer 26

Their convictions for manslaughter were upheld on the basis that the circumstances of the burglary meant that a reasonable and sober person would recognise the risk of some harm resulting from the burglary

Question 27

Which 3 cases and associated with causation and drugs?

Answer 27

(1) R v Cato (1976)
(2) R v Dalby (1982)
(3) R v Kennedy (2007)

Question 28

What were the facts in the case of R v Cato?

Answer 28

D and V prepared an injection of a mix of heroin and water and they injected each other and V died as a result and therefore D had committed the unlawful act of administering a noxious substance contrary to s 23 of the OAPA 1861

Question 29

In the case of R v Cato which 2 issues were raised?

Answer 29

(1) whether the defendant has committed an unlawful act

(2) whether the defendant caused the victim’s death, or whether the self-injection is an intervening act

Question 30

What were the facts in the case of R v Dalby?

Answer 30

D supplied V with a drug called Diconal which V self-injected and died as a result

Question 31

What was held in the case of R v Dalby?

Answer 31

D’s conviction of manslaughter was quashed because it was held that that although supplying the drug was an unlawful act, the supplying had not caused the death the injection had and this was a voluntary act by the victim which therefore broke the chain of causation

Question 32

What were the facts in the case of R v Kennedy?

Answer 32

D had prepared an injection of heroin and water for V to inject himself and V died as a result

Question 33

What was held in the case of R v Kennedy?

Answer 33

The H of L quashed his conviction for manslaughter because they ruled that V’s act in injecting the heroin himself was an intervening act which broke the chain of causation

Question 34

Which case illustrates that it is not necessary for the D to realise that the act is unlawful or dangerous?

Answer 34

DPP v Newbury and Jones (1976)

Question 35

What were the facts in the case of DPP v Newbury and Jones?

Answer 35

The D’s were 2 teenage boys who pushed a paving stone from a bridge onto a railway line as a train was approaching and the stone hit the train and killed the guard

Question 36

What was the question held in the case of DPP v Newbury and Jones?

Answer 36

Whether a D could be convicted of unlawful act manslaughter if he did not foresee that his act might cause harm to another

Question 37

What was held in the case of DPP v Newbury and Jones?

Answer 37

A defendant can be convicted provided that the unlawful act was dangerous and the D had the necessary mens rea for that act and it was not necessary to prove that the D foresaw any harm from his act

Question 38

What is the leading case for gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 38

R v Adomako (1994)

Question 39

What were the facts in the case of R v Adomako?

Answer 39

The D was an anaesthetist and during an operation one of the tubes supplying oxygen became disconnected and the D failed to notice until some minutes later and as a result the D suffered a heart attack caused by the lack of oxygen which also led to brain damage and the V died as a result

Question 40

What were the three elements for gross negligence manslaughter that appear in the case of R v Adomako?

Answer 40

(1) the existence of a duty of care by the defendant towards the victim
(2) a breach of that duty of care which causes death
(3) gross negligence which the jury considers to be so bad as to be criminal

Question 41

What was held in the case of R v Adomako?

Answer 41

Doctors giving evidence at the trial said that a competent anaesthetist would have noticed the disconnection within 15 seconds and that D’s failure to act was abysmal and therefore D’s conviction for GNM was upheld

Question 42

Which cases set down the three stage test in civil negligence?

Answer 42

Caparo v Dickman (1990)

Question 43

What are the 3 stages laid down in the case of Caparo v Dickman?

Answer 43

(1) proximity of relationship
(2) reasonable foreseeability of harm
(3) it being fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty

Question 44

What two cases illustrate a duty of care in gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 44

(1) R v Singh (1999)

2) R v Litchfield (1997

Question 45

What were the facts in the case of R v Singh?

Answer 45

D was the landlord of property in which a faulty gas fire caused the deaths of tenants

Question 46

What was held in the case of R v Singh

Answer 46

The courts recognised that D was under a duty to manage and maintain property properly

Question 47

What were the facts in the case of R v Litchfield?

Answer 47

D was the owner and master of a sailing ship and he sailed knowing that the engines might fail because of contamination to the fuel and as a result the ship was blown onto the rocks and 3 crew members died

Question 48

What was held in the case of R v Litchfield?

Answer 48

It was held that the D owed a duty of care to his crew members and therefore was guilty of manslaughter

Question 49

Which case illustrates an actual extension of the type of duty recognised by the courts?

Answer 49

R v Wacker (2002)

Question 50

What were the facts in the case of R v Wacker?

Answer 50

D agreed to bring 60 illegal immigrants into England and so he put them in the back of his lorry for a cross-channel ferry crossing and the only air into the lorry was through a small vent which was agreed to be closed at certain times to prevent then from being discovered and the crossing took an hour longer than usual and as a result 58 of the immigrants died

Question 51

What was held in the case of R v Wacker?

Answer 51

D argued it was impossible to determine the extent of his duty but the C of A disagreed as D knew that the safety of the immigrants depended on his own actions in relation to the vent and he clearly assumed the duty of care and therefore D’s conviction for manslaughter was upheld

Question 52

Which case illustrated that a duty of care can exist where the D has created a state of affairs?

Answer 52

R v Evans (2009)

Question 53

What were the facts in the case of R v Evans?

Answer 53

The mother and the half-sister (D) of V when they failed to call for help after V had overdosed as the mother clearly owed a duty of care to V, however D claimed she did not owe a duty of care but the C of A upheld her conviction on the basis that D had created a state of affairs by supplying her with a drug which she knew or ought reasonably to have known was threatening the life of V

Question 54

Which case illustrates a duty of care because of a relationship with the V?

Answer 54

R v Stone and Dobinson (1977)

Question 55

What were the facts in the case of R v Stone and Dobinson?

Answer 55

Stone’s sister came to live with the D’s who were mentally slow and unable to look after themselves and the sister was anorexic and eventually became bedridden and unable to look after herself and neither D’s were able to summon medical help and V died as a result

Question 56

What was held in the case of R v Stone and Dobinson?

Answer 56

Stone owed a duty of care towards his sister and Dobinson had undertaken some care of the sister and therefore also owed a duty of care and therefore the failure to summon help lead to them being convicted of gross negligence manslaughter

Question 57

Which case first explained that negligence had to be ‘gross’?

Answer 57

R v Bateman (1925)

Question 58

What were the facts in the case of R v Bateman?

Answer 58

The D was a doctor who attended a woman for the birth of her child at her home and during childbirth a part of the woman’s uterus came away and D did not send V to hospital for 5 days and as a result she died

Question 59

What was held in the case of R v Bateman?

Answer 59

D’s conviction for GNM was quashed because he had carried out normal procedures that any competent doctor would have done and therefore he was not grossly negligent

Question 60

What did Lord Hewart state in the case of R v Bateman?

Answer 60

“The facts must be such that, in the opinion of the jury, the negligence of the accused went beyond a mere matter of 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”

Question 61

In which case was the matter of ‘risk of death’ resolved?

Answer 61

R v Misra and Srivastava (2004)

Question 62

What were the facts in the case of R v Misra and Srivastava?

Answer 62

V had a knee operation and the 2 D’s were senior house doctors who were responsible for the post-operative care of V and they failed to identify and treat V for an infection

Question 63

What was held in the case of R v Misra v Srivastava?

Answer 63

The D’s appealed that the elements of GNM were uncertain and breached Article 7, but the C of A held that Adomako had clearly laid down the elements of the offence of GNM and therefore there was no breach of Article 7 and therefore their convictions were upheld