Constructive Manslaughter Flashcards
There must have been an unlawful positive criminal act
D must have committed a crime and that this resulted in death
Case that states the unlawful act must be criminal not civil
R v Franklin (threw a box off Brighton pier and hit a swimmer below who died)
Case which shows there must be a criminal act if there is not a criminal act there is not IM
R v lamb :shot his friend with a revolver both failed to realise that it would actually shoot.
Case shows v must apprehend
Case where there was an unlawful criminal act that lead to IM
R v Larkin:
Larkin threatened a man with a razor blade at a party, girlfriend of the man fell onto the blade and died
Larkin had committed a assault that led to death
What does r v Lowe state
An omission is not available for constructive manslaughter
Neglected child which caused death
Case which states the act need not be aimed at the victim
R v Mitchell :
Pushing in post office
Case that indicates the act can be aimed at property
R v goodfellow
Firebombed house hoping to be rehoused by council, his family was inside and died
What are the three tests that must be satisfied
1) there must be an unlawful positive criminal act
2) the act must have caused the death
3) the act must also have been a dangerous one
The unlawful positive criminal act must have caused the death so the rules of what apply
Causation
The act need not be the sole cause of death but
As long as it significantly contributed to it
Where is the problem with drugs cases and causation
When d supplies v with an illegal drug, V self injects is this an NAI?
Cato facts and outcome
Cato caused death
D prepared drugs andInjected each other. Committed unlawful act of administering a noxious substance that caused death
Year of Cato
1976
Dalby facts and outcome
Dalby didn’t cause death
D supplied drugs but v injects. The injection caused death not the supplying there is an NAI
Year of Dalby
1982
Facts if Dias and outcome
Dias didn’t cause death
D prepared syringe. V injected and d injected themselves. V was ill and died
Conviction quashed
Date of Dias
2002
R Rogers facts and outcome
Rogers didn’t cause death but confusion
D applied tourniquet to vs arm but v self injects
H of l indicated decision in R v Rogers was incorrect. He did not cause death and over turned ruling
Date r v Rogers
2003
Facts and outcome of r v Kennedy
Did not cause death
D prepared injection and handed it to v. Who self injected.
C of a said d’s participating actions had caused death
H of l over ruled as d had not carried out an unlawful act as had no administered a noxious substance under s23 of OAPA
Date of Kennedy
2007
Case that causes confusion in drugs
MacAngus & Kane v HM advocate which is a Scottish case therefore persuasive
Legal principle I’m MacAngus & Kane v HM Advocate
Vs self injection of drugs supplied by d does not necessarily break the chain of causation
2nd element of CM
The act must have been a dangerous one, in that it must have been an act that was likely to injure someone
