CM -involuntary manslaughter Flashcards

1
Q

What is involuntary manslaughter a type of?

A

It is a type of homicide

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is the definition of involuntary manslaughter?

A

The unlawful killing of a human being under the queens peace without malice afterthought

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the maximum for involuntary manslaughter?

A

Life imprisonment but a judge can give a lesser sentence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What are the 3 types of involuntary manslaughter?

A

Constructive manslaughter
Gross negligence
Reckless

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is the three stage test for constructive manslaughter?

A
  • unlawful positive criminal act
  • act must have caused the death
  • the act must be a dangerous one
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

The act must be a criminal one - which case was not criminal therefore not CM?

A

R V Franklin 1983

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What was R V Franklin about?

A

D threw a large box off Brighton pier which was a civil wrong

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What examples are criminal acts?

A
Assault 
Battery 
Theft 
Robbery 
Burglary 
Administering of obnoxious substances under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 
S23
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What case demonstrates a lack of criminal act?

A

R V Lamb 1967

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What was R V Lamb about ?

A

Lamb shot his friend , he aimed and pulled the trigger both men thought it would not fire. V did not fear the gun so there was no assault, no crime and therefore no constructive manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Which case demonstrated an unlawful criminal act for CM?

A

R v Larkin 1943

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is R v Larkin 1943 about?

A

Larkin threatened another man with a razor for chatting up his girlfriend. The other mans girlfriend swayed up against the razor and she was cut and died- this was CM because there was an assault even if D didn’t intend on killing the girlfriend

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Which case was about negligence but not CM because it was an omission?

A

R v Lowe 1973

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Which case demonstrates the act does not have to be aimed at the victim or even at a person?

A

R V Mitchell 1983

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What was R V Mitchell 1983 about?

A

Mitchell was involved in a fight in a post office - he pushed someone who fell into an elderly woman who died - guilty of involuntary manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Which case demonstrates that it doesn’t have to be aimed at a person?

A

R v Goodfellow 1986

17
Q

What is R V Goodfellow about?

A

D tried to firebomb his own house so that he could be rehoused by the council, his family were inside who were killed . Guilty of CM because act was dangerous and unlawful

18
Q

What must there be in CM?

A

There must be causation and no novus actus interveniens

19
Q

What is Cato 1976 about?

A

Two druggies injected drugs into each other - one of them died , D was convicted of CM for administering obnoxious substances

20
Q

What is R v Dalby about ?

A

D supplied drugs but did not inject them therefore there was an intervening act - not guilty

21
Q

What was Dias 2002 about ?

A

D prepared a syringe , he and V both Injected , D woke to find v Ill, v was taken to hospital who died , D’s conviction was quashed

22
Q

Which case was D not

Convicted because they only prepared and handed over the drugs but did not administer them to V?

A

R v Kennedy 2007

23
Q

Which case caused confusion regarding Kennedy because they said that self injection does not necessarily mean the chain is broken ?

A

Mac Angus and Kane v HM Advocate 2009

24
Q

Is the test to whether an act is dangerous subjective or objective?

25
Which case introduced the idea of the objective test
R v Church 1966
26
What is R v Church 1966 about ?
Church and a woman went to a van for sex but he was unable to satisfy her and she got angry - he threw her in a river after he knocked her out He was convicted of CM because the reasonable person would have seen that throwing someone into a river as dangerous
27
What type of law is involuntary manslaughter?
Common law
28
What case decided that psychological harm was insufficient and the harm must be physical?
Dawson and Others 1985
29
What was Dawson and Others about?
Dawson and others carried out an armed robbery. The man who's shop they robbed from sounded the alarm but died of a heart attack, he had a heart condition. Defendants were acquitted because they could not have been aware of D's condition
30
Which case demonstrated that the act was dangerous because of the obvious frailty of V?
R v Watson 1989
31
What was R V Watson 1989 about?
Watson and ab accomplice threw a brick through an 89 year olds house and entered with the intention of stealing. She died of a heart attack.
32
Why were they not acquitted in r v Watson 1989 ?
It was decided that it wasn't certain that their actions had caused the death.
33
Which case about burglary demonstrated a dangerous act?
Bristow, Dunn and Delay 2013
34
Which case showed that the act wasn't dangerous and it was just one punch?
Carey and Others 2006 | Ran after being hit and died of an unknown heart condition which was triggered when she started to run
35
Which case was it decided that the act was dangerous because D did multiple punches?
R v Lynch 2007
36
Which case demonstrated one punch manslaughter?
Furby 2006
37
Which case demonstrated that for constructive manslaughter, it is only , men's Rea of the crime constituting the unlawful dangerous act that is required?
R v Newbury and Jones 1976