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
The test to whether a criminal act is as decided in which case
Objective: r v church
Case facts of r v church
Church knocked a woman out and believed she was dead threw her in the river where she drowned, the reasonable man would realise this is dangerous
The resulting harm does not have to be serious but
Reasonable person would recognise that he unlawful act must subject the victim to at leaf some harm even if it was not serious harm (JM and SM)
Legal principle Dawson and others and orbiter
Act was not dangerous; causing fear was insufficient because d could not have been aware that f had a weak heart so the act was not dangerous
Clarified harm, frightening or shocking- psychological harm to v is insufficient, the shock must cause physical harm
Dawson’s and others case facts
D and another carried out an armed robbery of a petrol station whilst masked and armed with a pick axe and replica gun, V was 60 and had a heart condition and suffered a heart attack
R v Watson legal principle
Act was dangerous because of an obvious frailty
Case facts of r v Watson
Threw a brick thought window at victims house and verbally assaulted. 89 died from heart attack
Was Watson conviction held on appeal
No because it could not be certain that he actually caused the death
Legal principle and facts of Bristow, Dunn and delay
6 men planned to rob workshop with vans, v was found dead and it was decided he had been hit by one or both of the vehicles
To a reasonable person the robbery had a risk of some harm
Cases to further demonstrate dangerous act regarding one punch CM
Carey and others
Lynch
Furby
Carey and others legal principle and facts
Not a dangerous act
V was punched one and died, the punch was not dangerous because the reasonable person would not have foreseen physical harm
Lynch
Legal principle and facts
D had punched v several times, v also had a unknown Heart defect battery was dangerous because multiple punches are likely to result in some physical harm even if v didn’t have a heart condition
Furby
Legal principle and facts
One punch manslaughter
D and v were good friends, court regarded punch as an explicable reaction when d punched v with moderate force
D was convicted
